Transcripts For CSPAN House Judiciary Committee Debates Justice In Policing Act - Part 1 20240712

The whole thing i was saying went right over the head and you prove my case again. All that was missing was another cheap shot or a bucket of chicken. Back. D the gentleman yields. The question occurs on the amendment. Im sorry. Thewhat purpose does gentleman from california seek recognition . The gentleman is recognized. Chairman, 13 years ago i partnered with the California State Senate democrats in advocating for an open records act for complaints against Police Officers. Five years ago i cosponsored Hank Johnsons stop military rising the police act militarizing the police act. If you are seeking bipartisan support for police reform, you would have it. If you had sought consultation and compromise and cooperation, if you reached across the aisle, you would have found many sincere allies. Not only did you not offer republicans a seat at the table, you have not offered her publicans seats in the committee room, disenfranchising many of us who thought this issue was too important to phone in. I agree with several provisions to this bill, but i disagree with a lot of the sentiments expressed here today by majority members. One of theforces are most trusted institutions in our nation for a reason. The vast portion of Police Officers are good and decent people motivated by a desire to protect and serve our communities. To characterize them as systemically racist or systemically abusive is an insult to them and to our society. Without Law Enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no civilization. Demoralizing and demonizing the very people who every day put their lives on the line to assure the safety and rights of every citizen is an insult to those who serve and is destructive to the foundations of our civilization. I reject the notion america is systemically racist. Of everye are racist, color in every society. Side of ourbasest human nature. No nation has struggled harder to transcend that nature and to isolate and ostracize its racists then have americans. Founders placed principles in the declaration of independence they believed would someday produce a nation of free men and women of all races and religions together enjoying the blessings of liberty and the equal protection of our laws. Lincoln denounced any other claim as, quote, having an evil tendency if not an evil design. Design tendency and evil are exactly what the radical left have reintroduced to our society and it is tearing us apart. My views on Law Enforcement were shaped when i had the honor to work for the former Los Angeles Police chief ed davis. His approach to Law Enforcement proved very, very effective. During the time he was chief in los angeles, while crime skyrocketed nationally, 50 , he actually brought it down in los angeles. He believed in the policing principle of sir robert peel, that the police are an extension of the community. Chief davis believed that and practiced it. He introduced Neighborhood Watch , enlisting citizens to work in partnership with police. Plantroduced the basic that matched patrol officers with individual neighborhoods so they would become a familiar and recognized and trusted presence in each neighborhood. I believe the closer we adhere to these principles, the more effective Law Enforcement becomes, the fewer abuses we will see. Qualified immunity, the need to open Police Records of misconduct, the restrictions of no knock warrants, the restrictions of introducing military hardware, these provisions were presented as standalone bills, i think you would be able to demonstrate significant bipartisan support. This, bycizing all of byluding the minority, building these into a bill has a long list of operations and procedures upon every Police Department in the nation makes it simply unsupportable. Getting back to peels principles, policing is a uniquely communitybased function. New york, new york and weed patch, california are very different. They have different needs and challenges and standards. Ensuring protection for all of our citizens is a unique federal function, but running and micromanaging every local Police Department is far beyond our competence or authority. Even though there are provisions of the bill that i support, i cannot support the attempt to federalize our local Police Departments, denigrate Law Enforcement officials, and politicize what should be an issue bringing all of us together. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Oppose, no. The nos have it. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Lofgren . Ms. Lofgren votes no. Ms. Jackson lee . Ms. Jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen . Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson of georgia . Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutch . Mr. Deutch votes no. Ms. Bassi echo ms. Bass votes no. Mr. Richmond . Mr. Jeffrey . Mr. Jeffries votes no. Swalwell . Mr. Swalwell votes no. Mr. Lou . Mr. Lou votes no. Mr. Raskin . Mr. Raskin votes no. Miss jayapal . Miss jayapal votes no. Ms. Deming . Ms. Deming votes no. Mr. Caray of no. Ms. Scanlan . Ms. Scanlan votes no. Ms. Garcia . Ms. Garcia votes no. Mr. Negus . Mr. Negus votes no. Ms. Mcbath . Ms. Mcbath votes no. Mr. Stanton . Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Dean . Ms. Dean votes no. Ms. Mcardle powell . Ms. Mcardle powell votes no. Ms. Escobar . Ms. Escobar votes no. Mr. Jordan . R. Jordan votes yes aye. Abot votes mr. Gomer votes yes. Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Buck . Mr. Buck votes aye. Ms. Robie . Ms. Robie votes no. Mr. Gates votes aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Ms. Lisko votes aye. Votes aye. Dollar mr. Klein votes aye. Mr. Armstrong . Mr. Steube . Mr. Steube votes yes. Whore there any members have not voted and wish to vote . The clerk will report. Mr. Richmond, you are not recorded. Mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 25 nos. Any other amendments in the nature of a substitute . I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment to hr 7120 offered by mr. Gomer of texas. Stage 135, line 16 through 23, insert the following. Whoever commits murder in the commission of a kidnapping shall be punished by any term of years including life or death. Recognizedleman is objection to the amendment. The gentleman is recognized for the purpose of explaining. There have been allegations that we are not serious about dealing with the issue. Amendment off the the nature of the substitute, title iv says justice for victims of the lynching act. And then it goes through from with129 to page 135, numerous findings and my amendment does not change any of those. Those are left intact. Section 403,135, it says chapter 13 of title 18 u. S. Code amending at the end of the following. Whoever conspires with another person to violate certain sections shall be punished in the same manner as a completed violation of such section, except maximum prison is less than 10 years, the person may be in prison for not more than 10 years. Now, the original bill that the congressman had was a much better bill. The floor, why did this get water down . It should not be a 10 year sentence. It should be life. In his original bill it was life. But it got watered down because apparently the democratic leadership said if you want to vote, you have to water it down. So he did. So this was really more of a symbolic addition of a vote on the floor and i think it is legitimate to have it in this bill. But not like this. Whateds to be closer to congressman rush originally had. It addresses just how heinous a lynching is. Lets get serious. And i voted against it because it is absurd to have a 10 year maximum mentioned and only talk about conspiracy and say we dealt with the emmett till situation. Was a 14yearold africanamerican in 1955 on summer vacation. He was visited visiting relatives in the mississippi delta region. He spoke to a 21yearold young woman who was white, merritt, married, and proprietor of a Small Grocery store print what happened in the store was of great dispute. He was accused of flirting or whistling and the woman originally alleged he tossed touched her waist. To his house went and abducted this poor 14yearold boy, took him away, beat him, mutilated him, and shot him in the head and sank his body in the river. These men publicly admitted in an interview that they had killed emmett till. Bill, the way it is right now, had been passed into law before this happened in 1955, it would not have had any effect. A 10 year maximum for conspiring . Serious and it puts a serious penalty on this. Legacyive emmett tills something more serious than conspiracy and 10 year max of something more than that. Lets do it right. Those men deserve to be found guilty and they deserved the Death Penalty. The eye,two people in themwhite, and sentenced to death. I had one tried for capital murder was black, and i sentenced him to life. In this case, i would have no problem looking these guys in the eyes and sentencing them to death. Lets get serious. You want to do something serious . You say we are not serious . I say you are not serious unless you join me in putting a serious legacy onto the name of emmett till and the hard work, many years that bobby rush has put into making something where it should be. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. Lynching is a heinous, heinous crime. Murder of black people and africanamericans is obviously a heinous crime. This bill establishes for the first time in federal law the crime of lynching. There is a great step forward in addition to the other provisions of the bill, which we have been discussing and are great steps forward, to stopping systemic racism in this country, and stopping the murder by Police Officers so many black africanAmerican People. Lynching was made a federal crime by this bill for the first time it was very necessary to do that. But we are not going to make this bill barbarous by having a Death Penalty in it. The Death Penalty is not deserving of existing in the United States and his application over the years has been systemically racist. I will not yield. It is barbarous. It is essential that we make lynching a federal crime, which we do in this bill. And that is why we are doing it. We are not going to contaminate the great act of making lynching a federal crime by enacting a barbarous Death Penalty. I yield back. Who seeks recognition . For what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition . I appreciate my friend from ohio yielding. Look, i understand democrats are in the majority. I would like this amendment adopted to give real teeth to lynching laws. And if striking or death from the language of the amendment will get the chairman, since you say your big objection is it is barbarous because it includes the Death Penalty, you are in the majority, i understand that, and as a consequence i will strike death off of it if it will get your vote, mr. Chairman, and i would yield to you for that question. Will you vote yes if we eliminate the Death Penalty . The gentlemans time is his own. Mr. Yield it to you, chairman. With regard to this amendment, you are in the majority, and if i dont have your approval, apparently nobody is going to go different from you. It is groupthink. I will strike the Death Penalty part from this, since that was your big objection in your comments, if that will get your vote. Will you vote for it if i eliminate the Death Penalty from this amendment . So that it has a maximum life sentence. Does the gentleman yield to me . Yes. The answer is no. This section of the bill was fashioned by the two authors of the bill and it does the exact job we want it to do. I wish we were serious about putting real teeth into i reclaim my time. Obviously this is a serious amendment, meant to put serious teeth into this bill. I think what happened to emmett till deserves the Death Penalty and should in the future, but elections have consequences. You are in the majority. You wont vote for a Death Penalty. Im willing to strike that, because i want teeth in it, not just some symbolism for the death of emmett till. This recognizes what happened to him as lynching and it will punish it. I yield to my friend from texas. Theres really a number of reasons that you have criminal law and you enforce penalties. One is societal retribution to make the society whole. You want to make sure that that individual, criminal, does not repeat the same type of crime, so you have some kind of penalty, or you have a general deterrent because you dont want anyone else to look and say they can do something and get away with it. I think the offer to make this, remove the Death Penalty and make this a life sentence, is eminently rational and supportable, and we should do that. I mean, the emmett till case was horrific. The first time i heard about it, it was absolutely mind blowingly devastating. But if you are not going to do it because you think the Death Penalty is barbarous, which is what i thought the chair said, i just point out that the officers in minnesota, one is subjected to life in prison or even the Death Penalty. I only raise that because i think in a lynching case, to say the max you can get is 10 years is not going to provide the general deterrence that we need in our society. Thats why i support what my friend from texas has said. This is critical. If you dont want to include the Death Penalty, surely someone who engages in such a heinous crime as lynching should face up to a life sentence in prison. I reclaim my time. I agree with the gomer to amendment. Lynching is a hate crime, which should carry more than a 10 year sentence. And the fact he made a good faith offer withdrawing to death sentence and it was rejected by the chair is almost incomprehensible. I would ask unanimous consent, just so that it has a good chance of passing, that we strike the two words or death from my amendment. A point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. Chairman. The gentleman is recognized. If you remove the Death Penalty, it is already a case sb1201, kidnapping is already punishable by prisoner for a term or for life. Your amendment would just repeat what exists. It makes lynching a federal crime punishable my point is, it involves kidnapping, which is already punishable by life in prison under federal law. It is not specified as lynching. This makes it lynching. Will the gentleman yield back . Im hoping for a ruling on the unanimous consent request. I asked unanimous consent to strike the last two words of the amendment, or death. I object. The objection is heard. Who seeks recognition . The gentlelady is recognized. First, i want to remove the objection i had on the overall amendment, and then i want to speak the obvious. The heinous and violent and vile killing of emmett till more than 50 to 70 years ago, the fact that his name is invoked and we are talking about this is shameful that we had to wait this long, but we are grateful for the proponents of this bill, the senator from new jersey and the congressperson from illinois who have found that to get a federal statute against lynching is something that they have worked for for a very long time. I think it is important to clarify that the statute that we are proposing in this legislation is an addon. It means that state and local governments, whatever jurisdiction it occurs in, can proceed against this vile perpetrator. This touches a chord in my heart because i have been in the last 48 hours, two young men of color hung in my district. Hung in my district. I could come here and cry before everyone. Im getting texts from my constituents about what to do. I am grateful that the federal bureau of investigation has responded, but i also want to say, and my colleagues, i want you to be able to understand what it means to the george floyd family to maybe not even have gotten a call, but the first view they had of his dying moments of saying i cant breathe might have been unsolicited filming by a young 17yearold. Or to be in the position to get the phone call of tamir rice or Trayvon Martins mother. All these mothers got phone calls, or some notice, some unsympathetic notice. Or laquan mcdonald, who had at least 20 shots, if my recollection serves me, running away. Or mr. Brookss eightyearold daughter, who was looking for a birthday party, who, as mr. Johnson said, mr. Brooks was very cooperative. Do,all a guardian had to someone acting transparently as a guardian could have accepted in passing those tests about whether he was under the influence and let him walk home to his family. This is where we are today. We are not answering the pain of mothers, and i have called them off. Walter scott, freddie gray, those in my district, donald ray, and pamela turner, people who died in my congressional area. So what i believe is that we have to get justice today. It is a shame how long emmett till had to wait. It is a shame that in the midst of george floyd and the pain of his family, another family within days were suffering the same violence. It is well to acknowledge good policing and the heroes, but as the mother of a black son, and there are others here, my dear friend, my colleague, who sits here in reality for what she experienced. Dont underestimate that call or that neighbor saying, did you see what was on tv, and they not know what happened. They send their child out wherever it may be, getting cigarettes, playing in a park, tamir rice, with the bb gun. Whoever it was, going to a store in minneapolis. So, i just hope we can get back to George Floyds justice and policing act, because mr. Chairman, if we dont, the calls will keep coming. Some mother will pick up the phone, some father will pick up the phone, some grandmother will pick up the phone, or maybe they will get somebody running down the street knocking on their door, saying, did you hear what happened to your child . I cant take it anymore. I worry about a grown son because he is a black male. So can we get to the point . There are other times to do this legislation. Mr. Chairman, i ask to offer into the record this front cover that is potent and powerful to new yorkers, that shows the face of george floyd. Without objection. In it are the multitude of faces that have died in these tragic and unfortunate circumstances, they cry out for us to give them an answer. The gentlelady yields back. The question occurs on the amendment by mr. Gomer. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The nos have it. Recorded vote is requested. [roll call] are there any members who wish to vote who havent voted . Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Stanton votes no. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Are there any other members who wish to vote who havent voted . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 16 ayes and 23 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments . You. Ank i have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute section 102strict and redesignate provisions accordingly. The gentleman is recognized for the purpose of explaining his amendment. I hear my colleagues concern about the urgency of reforming police in america and improving safety. I have witnessed the type of leadership that we seek right now in this issue, and im referring to the work of mr. Cicilline from long island on the antitrust committee and how we have held field hearings and we have held congressional hearings in d. C. , and we have staff working together to work through complex, difficult issues, and seek a report that will convey a bipartisan view of how to reform antitrust issues in a positive and lasting way. I have also witnessed this amendment process, and i have witnessed our efforts here. And while we have spoken about these issues for a long time, we have not spoken together. I offer an amendment today that i think everyone would agree is germane. It is not frivolous. It goes really to the heart of a very important issue. And that issue is qualified immunity. The goal of the legislation is to make citizens safer, police more accountable, and to reduce Racial Disparities in the enforcement of our laws. Laudable goals. If you take away qualified immunity from Police Officers, you reduce the effectiveness of police and make communities less safe. If you cause officers to hesitate before they act, innocent people will die. Take for instance the city of baltimore, how the city of baltimore responded after politicians handcuffed the Police Department following the death of freddie gray and the ensuing riots. The New York Times found that 342imore ended 2015 with homicides, a 62 increase from the previous year. Some neighborhoods saw their homicide rates triple. 93 of the victims were black. The indirect consequences for neighborhoods were just as harmful. The Baltimore Sun reported that 315,000 doses of o we woods were looted during the riots. These drugs hit the streets and by 2017, baltimore reached a new high of 692 opioid deaths. This is a direct result of the Police Pulling back from neighborhoods. Baltimore Police Department dispatch records show that the number of field interviews dropped by 70 . The number of suspected narcotic offenses reported through proactive policing dropped by 30 . As reverend Rodney Hudson of Ames Memorial United Methodist Church in west baltimore stated, quote, drug dealers are taking control of the corners and the polices hands are tied. We have a community that is afraid. End of quote. These calls to sideline the police will have a grave impact and will only take us further from providing safety, justice, and equal protection for every man, woman, and child in this country. Having said that, i would ask my colleagues to join me in this amendment, passed the amendment, make this a stronger bill, and i yield back. The gentleman yields back. I will recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. This amendment would sorry, the bill would eliminate qualified immunity. This is one of the most important provisions of the bill. For anyone who wants to crack down on Police Brutality and on Police Misconduct of any kind. Qualified immunity was invented by the Supreme Court in the 1970s and 1980s. We never had qualified immunity before the 1970s and 1980s. And the world did not fall in. Police officers were not afraid to make arrests. Qualified immunity distorts the foundational civil rights law 421983, which does not provide for any official immunity and was intended to allow victims of misconduct to recover damages and vindicate their Constitutional Rights in federal court. Qualified immunity bars civil rights plaintiffs from winning unless it can prove that an officer violated a clearly established law. It effect in effect, it means unless a prior Appellate Court has already held the same type of conduct and circumstances violate the constitution. This is almost never the case. Qualified immunity means that civil rights cases are dismissed before they even reach a jury. Qualified immunity has been criticized across the political spectrum. From the Cato Institute and the Koch Foundation on the right, the aclu in the naacp on the left. Study after study has shown that qualified immunity allows egregious misconduct to go unpunished and unaddressed, even when a court finds an officers conduct violates the constitution, even if the court finds an officers conduct violates the constitution, he cannot be held liable under the doctrine of qualified immunity. We must get rid of this egregious and horrible doctrines. Its one of the key points of the bill. Its one of the key ways in which we can crack down on Police Brutality, in which we can crack down on the kind of misconduct that victimized george floyd and all the other people that we talked about here today. So i very much oppose this amendment and i urge everyone to vote against it. Its probably the most pernicious amendment we may see. I yield back. Who seeks recognition . For what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition . First, i want to echo the sentiments of my colleagues and give my condolences and thoughts and prayers of my family to the family of representative barr and representative sensenbrenner in the loss of their wives. I cant imagine dealing with such a tragic loss and what they are going through. Note that our family is praying with you. I also mourn the death of officer keene. He served with the florida fish and Wildlife Conservation commission for six years. He bravely dedicated his life to protecting and serving the public, and this tragic death will not be forgotten. I just got off the phone with the secondincommand in the county Sheriffs Office just to give my condolences and my thoughts. And through their investigation, and this just happened this past sunday, they have found that the moment that the criminal knew and found out that the officer was a lawenforcement officer, because the officer was reacting in plain clothes, once the officer told him he was a Police Officer, the criminal pulled out a gun and shot him and killed him. Prior to that he was not a threat. As soon as he knew he was a Law Enforcement officer, he pulled out a gun and shot him. So i believe that mr. Keynes life mattered. An africanamerican officer who served with distinction in the state of florida, and my thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. I rise in support of the a minute on qualified immunity. I sat at a roundtable yesterday with most of the sheriffs in my district and unequivocally, the Biggest Issue that they had is the peace in the bill as it relates to qualified immunity, and i will explain why. First, i think theres a real misconception about what qualified immunity is in the general public. They also shared this concern that more people need to talk about the fact that it is not full immunity. If you act outside of your standards of protocols and outside of your training, you dont have immunity. Thats why it is called qualified immunity. If we take that away from our officers, not only are you going to see they had two major concerns. One, many, many people in their department will just quit. My brother, who is a deputy and a supervisor, he has already had two officers in his squad quit because of everything that is going on. Youre going to have the real problem in recruiting good officers to join the force because they know they will get sued even if they dont violate any standards and protocols because, obviously, we know the trial system in america. Its easier to settle those cases than to take them to trial. And if they are moving within their standards and procedures, the immunity only applies. If they are outside of that, like we saw in the atrocious death of mr. Floyd, then obviously thats not going to make them immune from injustice. Taking that away i think is going to be hugely detrimental, not only to the safety of our officers, but also to the recruitment and retention of goodquality officers in the state of florida. So i rise in support of mr. Bucks amendment and look forward to supporting it. Thank you. The gentlemen yields back. For what purpose does mr. Armstrong seek recognition . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im skeptical of qualified immunity. I hate the concept, and i really hate the implementation, particularly out of the 1982 case, u. S. V. Harlow. I wish we would have a hearing on this because i also think i support the amendment as it currently stands. And the reason is i absolutely agree, qualified immunity needs significant reform. But i also think it needs to be replaced with something. And its a lot different time that it was in the early 1970s, and how this will end up working and how it will affect smaller departments and places across the country. Because what will happen is, this will not be a fight between the officer and a plaintiffs lawyer. This will be a fight between a departments Insurance Company and an officer. The reality is many officers have wives, kids, mortgages. And they did not have that much money. We do not pay our officers enough, in my humble opinion. But when you have a small department, youre going to have to carry that insurance. That means when there is a suit, there is going to be a lawyer provided by the Insurance Company. If the officer wants his own lawyer, he will have to hire one, and youll have settlements and premiums and you will have these things go out. That doesnt mean i dont think it needs reforming. Im not sure i wouldnt support completely abolishing it. What it means is, with all due respect for my colleague from florida, i was the one who said this stuff is hard, and it is. And its not hard if you dont care about the policy, and if you dont care about getting it right, and if you dont care about the unintended consequences and how it affects a Rural Department with five cops. Then it is not hard. You can do these things. But if you do care about all those things and you care about local control and you want to see reform, and you also want to see good Law Enforcement, then this stuff is hard. And it should be, and thats why we are here. But we should have hearings on this. We should get the answers to these things. Because i am absolutely, truly sympathetic to both sides, but i also live in the world of reality. I have represented plaintiffs in a qualified immunity case and was shocked at how little options we had. I have also represented officers in justifiable shootings, and i know the type of stressors and things they go through on a daily basis in an incredibly difficult job. So the reason i think im going to support this amendment isnt because i actually agree with it, no offense to my friend from colorado, but i dont think we can get rid of it without having a serious conversation about what comes next. And with that, i yield to my friend from colorado. I think the gentlemen for yielding. And i agree absolutely with what you say. I would love to see qualified immunity reformed. I would love to see a thoughtful process that is involved in how we reform qualified immunity, what the boundaries are, but taking it in a fashion like this where we dont hold hearings, where we dont listen to the officers and the needs of departments on how they recruit good officers, so that we dont have more bad officers, we have more good officers coming into departments, is essential. And i thank mr. Steube and his define in how we qualified immunity. If an officer acts outside of the training and the rules and regulations of that department, qualified immunity does not apply. Its only when an officers acting consistent with the rules and regulations of a department that that officer is protected by qualified immunity. What we are seeing now with choke holds, so many departments independently have, rightfully, in my view, stopped the technique of choke holds. That if an officer did that, not to protect an officers life, but just did it to subdue a suspect, that would be acting outside the departments rules and that officer would be subject to a civil suit personally. And i think it is so important that we define what qualified immunity is and not just keep it vague, so thank you very much. To that point, i agree with both you and mr. Steube in concept, and i agree with the chairman in practice. I would encourage people regardless of what side you are on in the aisle, look at some cases that have been thrown out because of qualified immunity. If it truly did work like that all the time, we would have a lot more confidence in it. But in reality in a lot of ways, it does not. I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Lets not get confused. Immunity, sovereign immunity, limited immunity, the bottom line is courts have found a way to contort the facts and to also contort the law. So as to render Police Officers not liable for every action that they take to harm the people that they are accused of mistreating or harming. This is just the reality of it. The courts have found a way to deny justice through the civil aggrieveo grieve to individuals seeking compensation for the loss of their loved one, and its time for us to end that charade, that legal charade that hides behind a bunch of manmade exceptions, and, you know, you find a way to avoid holding folks accountable. Thats why we have the kind of Police Misconduct that we have today, is because they have not been held accountable through the courts, either criminally or civilly. So fortunately, we are changing both the criminal law and the civil law to make it easier for officers to be held accountable when they violate the law. Now, i will agree that most Police Officers dont violate the law. Thats why they should not mind when they can be held liable for their misdeeds. Most are not going to commit any misdeeds, and so they have nothing to worry about. Its just like me as an attorney. You know, i mean, people could sue me as an attorney, so that meant i had to have malpractice insurance. I had to actually go out and purchase malpractice insurance. And im sure that there will be products available to protect Police Officers. Those products, Insurance Products, would be paid for by their employer, just like the employer pays the judgments any time when Police Officers, and it doesnt happen often, but whenever they are held accountable in civil courts, their employer, the city or the county or the state, always steps up to the plate and indemnifies the officer. They are often held liable along with the officer under respondent superior laws. And so, bottom line, people who decide to go into Law Enforcement, they are not going to be dissuaded from going that route simply because they can be held accountable. So, its nonsense, these arguments that we are hearing about, you know, what we are doing is going to kill the ability of agencies to recruit officers. Thats just not going to happen. We do need to raise the pay of these officers so that they dont have to work two and three jobs just to make ends meet. There is a lot we can do to foster good policing as opposed to the bad policing that we have being fostered, and one way of curing bad policing is giving people the ability to sue these officers, giving them some redress. Thats the way it should be in america. Nobody should be above the law. So i support the underlying bill. I do not support this amendment which guts an essential revision of the bill, and i would ask my colleagues to do the same. And with that, i will yield to the gentleman. Thank you. I just want to ask, isnt it true that even without qualified immunity, in order for an officer to be held liable for the use of force in a civil rights case, the plaintiffs would have to show that the use of force was unreasonable . Even without qualified immunity . It would. Thank you. I yield back. And with that, i yield back. The gentlemen yields back. For what purpose does mr. Johnson seek recognition . Mr. Gates, sorry. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I will be the third republican now to express my support for reform to the qualified immunity doctrine. Again, there are republicans who want to work on these things with you and perhaps we would actually have an amendment and compromise Bipartisan Legislation that could do some good on qualified immunity, had we been invited to the legislative process. But instead, we have been called insincere. Our motives have been called into question. How we love our family members has been criticized. We have been told that our amendments make a mockery of peoples pain. I just want to say from the bottom of my heart, i believe we could make some progress on qualified immunity. I was hoping to use the remainder of my time to enter a constructive colloquy with you, and i would ask, have you given thought to some of the concerns that mr. Armstrong raised about the Financial Impact of a change in the doctrine and the Insurance Market and a small agencys ability to pay for that, and how we sought input from some of those folks so that we might understand in real dollars and budgetary percentages what that would mean . Because i dont think there is a Single Member of this committee who would want to sacrifice elements of good policing for the sake of maybe insurance that would not need to be purchased if we had a well tailored doctrine. Yes, we have obviously considered these things. And it is clear that, given the requirement in the law without qualified immunity that a Police Officer were found to use force unreasonably, youre not going to have any kind of problem except when you should have a problem. Where a Police Officer has used force unreasonably, beaten someone or killed him or whatever, there should be liability. If we repeal the qualified immunity statute. What is the cost . The cost is indemnified in 98 point something percent of the cases by the departments. And we had no problem. There was no problem with these costs before qualified immunity was invented by the courts in the 1970s. Have we looked at what Insurance Products might be available and how, like in niceville, florida, where they have under 10 officers. How they might be able to acquire it . All i can say is experience before 1970 showed there was no problem with this. And if the department allows officers to use unreasonable force, it should be liable. Let me ask this question. Have you thought about the, how it intersects with the sovereignty doctrine . If you had, if you have a defendant who is not particularly collectible, they would not be able to recover, whereas in the sovereign immunity doctrine, you have more flexible defendant. Question, if ae Police Officer cannot act unreasonably and injures or kill somebody, he should pay. And if he cant, the department will have to pay. Departments ought not to have Police Officers who use force unreasonably. Does the bill do that, mr. Chairman . Yes. It says if the officer cannot pay no, the bill doesnt say that. Is that something the chairman would consider . Its covered in 98 of collective Bargaining Agreements in the United States that the department will indemnify the officer. And again, the qualified immunity doctrine, which we seek to repeal in this bill, did not exist before the 1970s and you did not have a problem. I have limited time and i have one more question. I thank you a great deal. The white house has expressed some concern over policies that might lead a Police Officer not to get out of the car. And so i just wanted to give you a chance to respond in the concern that if you go too far in bridging these immunities, you constrain the active and engaging policing that mayors have said are really important. I want to give you the chance respond. No, i dont agree with that, because without qualified immunity, there is no liability. Frankly, without qualified immunity, if we get rid of it, there is still no liability unless the Police Officer has used unreasonable force. And Police Officers should not use unreasonable force, obviously. And to say that people are not going to want to be Police Officers because they want to force issonable frankly a slander against people who want to be Police Officers. I dont think that was the argument, but i appreciate your indulgence. I yield back. For what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. I want to just make a comment on masks. I do appreciate that this week as opposed to last week, a majority of the Minority Party is Wearing Masks. I would ask that all members of the Minority Party when they are not speaking wear masks. We wear a mask to protect each other. On the question qualified immunity, yesterday, an attorney testified before the Senate Judiciary committee in a hearing about police use of force. He is a civil rights lawyer whose practice consists of representing the families of black americans killed by Law Enforcement. The fact that an attorney can have such a practice is an indictment of the status quo, worthy of discussion in and of itself. But i want to bring to your attention what he said. When asked what reform we absolutely have to take on, he said the one without all of this effort will be for nothing, qualified immunity. You dont have to be a lawyer, a member of congress or a criminal justice expert to understand all the protesters marching in the street across this country. They want accountability. Eliminating qualified immunity is how we get it. Qualified immunity is a doctrine made by judges, not by congress, not by statute. It prevents victims of Police Brutality from holding Police Officers civilly liable for civil rights abuses, unless the exact circumstances of the case have been previously judged by an Appellate Court. Think of the absurdity of that. To put it in perspective, its like barring me from bringing a gender Discrimination Suit against my employer unless a court has heard a case with the exact same type of sexist behavior before. It is a preposterous doctrine. The whole purpose of the legal system is to allow people to seek recourse and redress for the wrongs they have suffered. If we exempt the officer of the Justice System from facing the consequences for the harm they do, it corrupts the legitimacy of the entire system. Taking this step will not bring ruin to the Police Department. For example, as the chairman just pointed out, 99 of Police Departments are covered by insurance policies their states cities have purchased for lawsuits. They are indemnified by their employers. All this will do is bring accountability to bad actors for Police Misconduct. From what ive heard, thats what everyone in this chamber wants. And i will correct the characterization of my colleague on the other side of the aisle in terms of what the administration has offered in terms of police reform. In public, he has recommended to Police Officers that when they put defendants or arrestees in the car, they rough them up. Dont protect their head. That is the kind of reform our president is interested in. This bill will go a long way to correcting those kinds of absurd wrongs. Systemic racism is within our police system, it is within so many of our communities. This bill will go a long way to correcting some of those wrongs. With that, i yield back. For what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition . I moved to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, im now the 4th republican, by my count, to express my support for thoughtful reforms to the qualified immunity doctrine. I think i speak for almost all of my colleagues that they also agree. And it is precisely for that reason that i support the buck amendment. I think it is very important. As has been said, we have to acknowledge that something as complex and expansive as qualified immunity should not be removed or changed without serious debate and thoughtful study and consideration by this committee. This has simply not been allowed here. I have a different set of experiences. I litigated cases in federal courts for nearly 20 years. I understand the frustration of navigating doctrines created through what often amounts to the policy preferences of the judiciary. I understand the perspective offered by Justice Clarence thomas when he wrote a few years ago, quote, until we shift our focus of our inquiry to whether immunity exists in common law, we will continue to substitute our own policy preferences for the mandates of congress, unquote. Congress ultimately has the authority to properly clarify and intervene in matters of policy that governor legal system, and qualified immunity is obviously no exception to that. However, this should be done prudently, especially one of this magnitude, with this many possible ramifications. This morning, i sent a letter to the gentleman from tennessee on the constitution and civil rights and Civil Liberties where i serve as ranking member. I asked on a hearing on this very subject so that we can do our duty improperly and methodically study this area of law in more depth, before we make such sweeping changes. I would like to enter that letter into the record by unanimous consent. Without objection. Simply put, the broken process has produced a flawed product. I have speaking to key leaders in my district and they have expressed serious concerns over the sweeping manner in which this bill eliminates any protection at all from serious Civil Penalties for individual officers. They are deeply concerned about the apparent lack of concern that exists over the practical effect of this change. As one of my sheriffs told me last night on the phone, no rational person will want to do this job anymore. How in the world do the sponsors of this bill think we will be able to recruit qualified new officers if all police are under such tremendous stress, increased danger, intense scrutiny, and now congress is going to tell them that even if they perform their difficult duty in strict accordance with their training, they can now face unrestricted personal liability and lawsuits. That is what the sheriff says. He is on the ground. He is the recruiting and one training and hiring new officers. With respect to my friend in georgia, there is zero comparison between an attorney carrying his own professional malpractice insurance and a street cop who may encounter inherently dangerous physical encounters with assailants and violent offenders on a daily basis. It is absurd to suggest that those two things are even comparable. My hope is that my colleagues will recognize the gravity and profound consequences of this subject and agree that a more thoughtful and deliberate process is necessary before we make these hasty changes. Again, you can get bipartisan agreement on this. We are not saying there should not be reforms to the qualified immunity doctrine. We are just saying if we are going to do this, it needs to be done in the right way. I would like to reiterate my support for the amendment. With that, i yield back. Or i yield to the gentleman from arizona. I thank the gentleman from louisiana. I also support this amendment because i support a reform of this immunity, but we are not getting there. What you are doing is you are going to basically leave a vacuum there. I get that part of the deal is we are upset because the courts developed this doctrine. That is always a problem for us, at least some of us. But the reality is what happened in the interim from the 1970s and this Court Doctrine came out. Why we need to approach it very differently. Number one, we took the shackles off ambulance chasing lawyers. We a sickly say go out and find lawsuits. You cannot watch tv without getting inundated with opportunities to go to a lawyer for a classaction lawsuit. That will happen here. There will be endless pursuits of officers, Police Officers by trial lawyers. The second thing is you are creating an incentive here. What you are doing and the Police Officers i have spoken to in our jurisdiction and others around my state all say the same thing that has been said over and over. We will not be able to recruit, train, and keep Police Officers and they will leave us. And that is what you are going to get if you do not file this amendment. I yield back. Theor what purpose does gentleman from maryland seek recognition . Thank you. Fromieve we have heard now four republicans according to a statement of the gentleman from louisiana saying they to transforming the corrupt doctrine but they are supporting an amendment to strip it from the bill. I am not sure i follow that. Let me try to explain to those people who are not familiar with qualified immunity why this is such a dangerous thing and why we need to move forward on the George Floyd Justice and policing act. Cases thatere six were just appealed to the u. S. Issue withrt taking the application of this qualified immunity doctrine. One case from georgia, it is an amazing case where Police Officers pursued a criminal suspect into an unrelated familys backyard. There is a picnic going on at the time. The officers ordered all of the people to the ground. The children and the adults. And when the family dog came onto the scene the Police Officers began to shoot at the dog and ended up hitting one of the kids, creating terrible physical, mental and emotional injuries. And yet the 11th circuit granted qualified immunity saying there was no prior case law involving the exact unique facts of this case where officers shot at a dog and ended up hitting a child instead. One of the defending judges took issue and said that no competent officer would fire his weapon in the direction of a nonthreatening pet while that pet was surrounded by children. And yet that family was left completely out in the cold and for some reason my colleagues say we dont really like the results, but we need more heroes and more discussion about it. Another one from tennessee, another one involving a police dog against a suspect who had surrendered and was sitting on the ground with his hands up. There was a prior case that said it was unlawful to use a police dog without warning against unarmed suspect laying on the ground with his hands down at his sides. The police dog attacked the the police dog attacked the person, but the court said the police could not be held accountable because the prior case, the hands were down on the suspect, and in this case, the hands were up. Case after case like this. The ninth circuit, city of fresno, here the Police Actually stole 225,000 while executing a search warrant as part of an illegal gambling raid. They seized 50,000. They confiscated 151,000 in cash and another 125,000 in cash and stole the difference. But there was no clearly established law when they still property seized pursuant to a warrant. What were getting is the court saying the actions of the police were unconstitutional, they violated the constitution, but the test is whether a reasonable officer would have known from a prior case whether or not their actions were unconstitutional. Now, imagine if that were the case when we prosecute criminals in america. In other words, you could rob a bank if you had a red van and nobody had ever robbed a bank with a red van before. You could murder someone with the steak knife if no one has ever been murdered with the steak knife for in that jurisdiction. I mean, come on, get real. Lets get rid of it. It is a threat to the people of the United States of america. In america, those of us who aspire and attain office are nothing but the servants of the people. The minute that we begin to act like we are the masters of the people, like we control them, that we lord over the people, that we are like kings and queens, that is the moment to evict, eject, reject, start over again. This doctrine is corrupt. It does not belong in the United States of america. Why dont you just say you support at least this part of it . Lets at least establish a record that we need to get rid of this perverse qualified immunity doctrine foisted on the people of the United States. I recognize mr. Johnson. I yiled. Yield. Im thinking of a scripture that defines civil authorities as agents of wrath to keep order. There is an important distinction between the activities of Law Enforcement officers and other Public Officials that you just said. Can you guys not acknowledge that . We are saying lets do it in a meaningful way so we dont throw the entire baby out with the bathwater. Whether you recognize it or not, Law Enforcement officers on the ground think this is absolutely essential to keep their departments manned and have employees, period. E a responset hav thats the problem. If your conduct is reasonable and the departments training people come were not going to get in a situation like this. But if you look at what happened in the case of george floyd, any officer should have known that you dont squeeze the life out of someone by suffocating them. Rep. Nadler the gentlemans time has expired. The gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized. Thank you. I seek unanimous consent consent to enter upon the record this weasley published article entitled, congress is going to have to repeal qualified immunity. In one simple sentence, he says, qualified immunity has been perhaps the biggest barrier to rectifying constitutional violations through the Justice System. It was published in the atlantic only recently. Rep. Nadler without objection. The gentleman is recognize. As has already been mentioned, qualified immunity is a doctrine that was created by judges which generally shields government officials, including Law Enforcement officials, from liability, unless their acts violate clearly established statutory or Constitutional Rights. The idea behind it is to give, in this case Police Officers, some leeway for certain actions that often involve splitsecond judgment under extremely challenging circumstances. Qualified immunity is not a perfect doctrine. As were seeing by the debate here this afternoon that is certainly the case that it is not perfect. But that doesnt mean we should completely remove it as a defense for our Police Officers in this nation. Doing so could well mean a Police Officer choosing between neglecting his or her duties, and therefore jeopardizing the public safety, or risking being sued, which could be a big deal in anybodys life. We should take the time to hold a hearing, or hearings on qualified immunity, and bring in experts to testify. I hear all points of view, and then determine the best approach. We clearly havent spent sufficient time here to be knowledgeable enough to do something that is as significant as this, relative to thousands and thousands of Police Officers who put their lives on the line for us every day all across the country. At this time, i would like to yield to mr. Buck. Rep. Buck many of us on this side of the aisle, in particular, and some democrats also who represent rural districts and Police Departments that have five or six officers. These officers are underpaid and the departments are underfunded. This department will shut down or severely restrict small departments in rural america. And it is a major concern that i hear from the small departments. I also want to respond to something the chairman said. I dont think we are that far apart on this issue, and i agree with the gentleman from maryland. I listen to those situations and i find those ridiculous. I think that we can reform qualified immunity in a way that doesnt allow it to cover those situations but does give officers, good officers that are making tough choices within the training and rules and regulations of their department, coverage so that we dont have outlandish insurance claims or frivolous lawsuits or putting officers at risk. I think thats what the departments are looking for, is some protection so that they can hire good officers and retain good officers. Im not suggesting my friends on the other side of the break i dont agree that we need that one of the goals is to make sure we are also making our community safer. There are ways of reforming this. I think this is the one provision that causes many of us on this side of the aisle to look skeptically on this particular bill. I would ask my colleagues to join me in this amendment and then lets work on qualified immunity. It doesnt have to happen today. It doesnt have to happen this month. We can fix qualified immunity in two or three months in a meaningful way that has an impact on policing in america. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I yield back to the gentleman from ohio. I yield back. For what purposes does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . I appreciate this amendment very much. I have one to illustrate that whats good for the goose is good for all the rest of the geese that would remove immunity from all federal officials, including members of congress, but its clear that there a strategy on the others, we are voting down every amendment, no matter how good it may be. Even my amendment to strike two words or death was met with an objection. I dont know if that was just meanspirited or if it was an effort to shield about without those words or death. It was made in good faith by me. Obstructionist tactics to stop it. Amendment was prepared to eliminate those two words and bring it back, but im not going to do it. On the qualified immunity issue, as others have said, we dont know the full impact, but the people on the ground say they are not going to be able to keep law officers. Ive heard that personally from many law officers. What will happen . Back when after i got here, i had a bill, i thought it would be a good idea to give immunity like i had as a judge. If i had not had judicial immunity, then i would have been tied up in court. People have a lot of time in good Law Libraries at some prisons. But i had immunity. When i was growing up in east texas, smalltown, if you had a problem with a teacher, you didnt threaten to sue them. You went to the school board and got them fired. Why dont we give schoolteachers educational immunity so they dont have to worry about being fired . I pitched that to some representatives of the National Education union and they said they couldnt support it. This would protect your members. Then i found out, this Liability Insurance they sell to their members is a huge cash cow for unions. One effect of this would be a tremendous influx of money from law officers paying to their unions for some liability policy that the union endorses, and it would be a huge cash cow for Law Enforcement unions. That would be one effect. Weve already heard from my friend, i believe from georgia, that would make the city liable. Police dont have deep pockets. Its hard to find somebody because they dont get paid that well. They should. Most dont. The overall effect would be to expose them to spending a lot of time being sued, answering anybody they tick off can file a suit. You can have 50,000 settlements. You get enough of them, you can make a living. But good cops know who the backups are. You hear it all the time. Im sure those on the others that worked in Law Enforcement or have family, they know who the bad cops are. If theres a racist in their force, they know it. I wish we could Work Together to come up with a way to have peer reviews. Usually, unions negotiate against having peer reviews, as i understand. There are things we could do to help the good cops help us get rid of the bad cops. I know cases where unions have come in and defended whistleblowers who stood up against a bad boss, and that was helpful. They also come in and get bad cops reinstated. There are things here we need to do. This is the first chance weve had to cross the aisle. The other side is going to vote no on everything. It is a shame. Dont say our amendments would weaken your bill when we are serious and nothing is more serious than the Death Penalty or at least life in prison for lynching and given a real good name to the a real base for the emmett till law. Lets come together. Lets work this out. There are bad cops. There are some racists. But let the good cops help us get rid of it. Dont get rid of qualified immunity until we know the effect. For what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition . I would be pleased to yield at the beginning to the gentleman from rhode island. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Its not the case that courts have held that violating training or policy is irrelevant to whether qualified immunity applies. Recently, the Supreme Court applied qualified immunity where an officer shot and killed a person in a car chase despite being specifically instructed by his superior not to shoot. In that case, the court said, even if an officer acts contrary to her training, that does not itself negate qualified immunity. I just want my colleagues to be clear that that assertion that if you act pursuant to your training, qualified immunity doesnt apply. Its not the law of the land. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Thank you so very much, mr. Chairman. We have said the word good friends here, but mr. Gohmert indicated some examples of the judiciary end of teachers. He makes a very valid point in terms of putting yourself in a position that you wouldnt want to be sued. I thought about this. I think a lot of us have stayed up at night thinking about this journey that we are taking. I think Police Officers, if i can recount my history and survey of different professions, the only ones authorized to carry guns or to exercise deadly force when i said at the beginning i want Police Officers to go home to their families, and, as i indicated, i want mothers to be able to receive their children wherever it may be, back to their homes or dads in the face of the fathers day coming up. I would like qualified immunity to be seen not as a detriment to good policing. When we are in the midst of a civil rights battle, there are countless lives lost. Some under the pretense of Law Enforcement. That was segregation. This is by way of Law Enforcement. People did lose their lives. Over that period of time, i dont believe one reckoning occurred. We have a circumstance where officers trained will steer away from the kind of misconduct that takes someones life. Youve given them no justice, no easing of their pain. Qualified immunity is not a despotic decision. It allows you to be in court. It allows the judge to say i rule for the defendant, no, i rule for the plaintiff. It is the Justice System that has crafted and built on the constitution that we know started out by saying, to form a more perfect union, and our task, as the most powerful lawmaking body in the world, when people are pleading and bleeding, is to give life to that document and to give the power to state and local authorities, help attorney generals of states respond to their local issues, to bring justice to families heretofore who have received no justice. I use Trayvon Martin because someone is in the audience saying that wasnt a Police Officer. Youre absolutely right. But it was under this law because he was running around saying he was a citizen patrol. Ahmaud arbery wasnt a Police Officer, but they said they were making a citizens arrest. The question is, if those individuals wouldnt have at least some framework of a violation of their civil rights, they are in a unique category, but their life has been lost, and then all others were in the Law Enforcement of some kind, and you are suggesting to me you have no faith in the courts, that is what qualified immunity is all about. The gentleladys time has expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. For what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition . Thank you, mr. Chairman. While we are debating the misguided idea of removing important protections for Law Enforcement, internet platforms like google, twitter, facebook enjoy Liability Protections of their own. These companies are protected from lawsuits in exchange for maintaining neutrality across their platforms. But in the last few weeks, from twitter and google, there have been violations of that neutrality to censor conservative views. If my democratic colleagues are intent on eliminating Liability Protections for Law Enforcement, then surely they can look at Liability Protections including those enjoyed by big tech companies. Yesterday, google made the disturbing decision to censor conservative views. Google, which controls 70 of online advertising, threatened to remove zero hedge and the federalist from their ad section, which would ultimately bankrupt those companies. And why did big tech threaten these new sites . These news sites had the audacity to permit individuals to express their own viewpoints in the comments sections. This is censorship, plain and simple. You are either a platform or you are a publisher. You cannot be both. Its plain and simple. If google or twitter choose to stifle free speech, if they choose to ban particular viewpoints, then they should lose Liability Protections. Again, you are either a platform or you are a publisher. You cannot be both. While we are debating this misguided idea of removing important Liability Protections from Law Enforcement, i think its also important that we continue these liability conversations in the coming weeks and months ahead when it comes to big tech. Will the gentleman yield . I yield to my good friend and colleague from the great state of north dakota. Im going to Say Something nice. Does that mean no . Ok. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The cases that he cited are true. I do encourage people to read on this. Its important. I also agree with mr. Sheila jackson lee that the courts usually get it right. I agree with the chairman that its a reasonableness standard. The question is i live in a reality where lawsuits are not always the best intended. When it comes to civil Rights Violations with Law Enforcement, any detention of any person, any use of Excessive Force of any person is a civil rights violation. When you deal with these questions and you leave it to a reasonableness standard, by that time whether its a frivolous suit or not, its a question of fact for the jury. When you are in small departments and you are dealing with these budgets, by the time you get to that point, that department and that insurance has already lost, because there will either be a nuisance settlement regardless of the merits of the case or they are hiring a lawyer. When these cases come out in practice, the Law Enforcement officer in these situations will not have a lawyer. The department and the Insurance Company will have a lawyer. In order for the Law Enforcement officer to have a lawyer, hes going to hire that lawyer himself if the department is covering that Liability Insurance. All that being said, if we get to a point where we have to choose between having qualified immunity as it stands now were having none of it, i probably would end up with getting rid of it, but i dont think we are there yet. I think we should have this conversation. In our quest to solve some of these problems in larger urban areas, we are going to put significant i just represent a rural district. Im sure people who represent urban areas hear the same thing. We are going to have a serious problem. We hear it all the time. Its not because we are trying to protect bad cops. We are trying to protect small departments. Thats what we are trying to do. I hope we can continue to work on this. I support the amendment. I yield to my friend from louisiana. Part of that conversation needs to be with our colleagues who have been swat officers and served on the thin blue line. On this qualified immunity issue, you will have good cops, good people of good faith, who will be deterred in the performance of their duties because they are concerned about exactly what was just articulated. This will make our communities less safe, and that is the problem. I yield back. The gentlemans time has expired. The question occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Opposed, no. Noes have it. The clerk will call the role. Clerk [roll call vote] [vote continues] [vote continues] [vote continues] has everyone voted . Mr. Cohen . Mr. Cohen votes no. The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, 13 ayes, 23 noes. The amendment is not agreed to. The committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes. We introduced a comprehensive policing reform bill 10 days ago. Hadxplained that we initiated the process by developing comprehensive legislation with senators booker and harris as well as members of our caucus. We also explained the importance of moving quickly given the moment we were in as a nation. Since that time, we have indicated to the minority that if theyre interested in developing legislation that they could support, we needed to understand how they wanted to change the bill and whether those changes would lead them to support the bill. Chair bass has reached out to the minority leader and senator scott and we have reached out to the minority over the course of the last 10 days. We held a hearing one week ago to which the minority invited three witnesses. The minority did not share a single amendment with us and we still did not see any of their remaining amendments. We indicated we could support if we have the opportunity to review and discuss before we go to the floor. Hat is their right, of course if a member would like the majority to support all or any of the amendments, they would normally share the text. That has not happened here. M. Bass and those on the other the aisle remain open to a full and frank discussion with the minority about their possible support for the legislation which could happen before me go to the floor next week or in discussions with the senate iver before after they take up legislation on the floor but when we are able to have these discussions we would insist any final bill be meaningful, comprehensive entrance formative. George floyd and countless victims of Police Violence deserve no less. Are there any other amendment . As lesko. Amendment at the desk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 7120 offered by ms. Lesko. At the end of the bill the following. The gentlelady is recognized. This is so important, that we come to a resolution to help solve this problem, and to heal our nation. Everyone of us is concerned about what has happened and the riots and looting. We just need to heal our nation. Thats why ive stated before that i support elements of the underlying bill. To lawpeaking enforcement and a variety of different Law Enforcement officers with varying backgrounds, they have told me that other elements of this bill told undermine their ability keep communities safe and that is why i oppose the bill overall. I also support President Trumps executive order that call for more training, certification, it called for building a partnership with nonprofit organizations, social workers, so lawenforcement and police can go out together to deal with homelessness, Mental Health issues and substance abuse. It also talked about a shared database, so we can address Police Officers that have abused their power. I have an amendment i think is applicable. It says a unit of local government may not receive a grant under the Grant Program or the brian Grant Program and both are used for Community Policing a Law Enforcement grants. If the unit of law of local government permitted during the Previous Fiscal Year the operation of an autonomous zone in its jurisdiction. Allowed extremists to take over a portion of seattle and take over a Police Precinct. Many call it the autonomous, police free zone. Reportwatched the media by the Seattle Police chief. It was not on fox news. It was on a different media station. Quote, this is what the seattle raice chief stated, that sorts ofries, and all violent acts were occurring in the area and we are not able to get to them. It is totally outrageous that we are allowing these people to take over part of a city and a Police Precinct. And then have the law have a hardbe time getting in to deal with problems within this area. If cities are going to allow people to take over portions of into autonomous, police free zones, certainly, these cities should not be receiving federal grants that are supposed to be used for Community Policing and Law Enforcement. With that, i ask for your support for this amendment. Gentlelady yields back. Mr. Chairman . Gentlelady from washington in opposition to the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Eel like we are on i dont know how many times we are going to raise seattle. The area we are talking about is a few miles from where i sit right now. There is no takeover. There is no takeover. This is a six block area that has since shrunk a little bit because there have been ongoing discussions with Peaceful Protesters and the Police Department about how to make sure emergency vehicles can get there and various things like that. My colleague refers to my constituents, and there are thousands of them that come through that area every day, as these people. My colleagues continue to spread falsehoods about my district. Seattle mayor and other local leaders have been in close discussion with Peaceful Protesters. Following the decision on june 8 to have this particular area, i again invite people to come and see the area. I know that there are several rumors. I already put forward to the statement. Chiefs her remarks have been taken out of context. It seems to not matter. And i find that troubling, mr. Chairman, that these lies and falsehoods would continue to be told again and again and again. I have submitted for the record my own Police Chiefs statement about those comments not applying to that six block area. According to very critical news reports and our own siding of the area, the reality is that these are rumors that have been amplified by right wing cable pundits and encouraging people to think that protesters are extorting businesses, engaging in other lawless behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth. The protesters have been engaging in such terrible lawless activity such as screening movies, Holding Public forums on social justice, and organizing poetry readings. In fact, at a News Conference held last friday, the chief of police again said that there were no formal reports of businesses being extorted by protesters, another lie that has been perpetrated and spread by right wing media. But also by my colleagues on this committee. And frankly, i am somewhat astounded that this continues to be the conversation. Unlike President Trump, who has threatened on twitter to quote take back the neighborhood by force and condoned the use of teargas on Peaceful Protesters, just so he can cross the street for a photo op, seattles local leaders are focused on deescalation, and not on confrontation with the protesters. So please do not mischaracterize what is happening in seattle. This area is perfectly peaceful. Do not allow yourselves to be cheapened with these ridiculous amendments. Again, i am reminded of the old adage that if you not if you do not like the old the question the old adage that if you do not like the answer the only option is to change the question. Stop changing the question. The question before us is how do we address that murders of george floyd, Breonna Taylors and others and how we bring about a transformation that allows for black americans to be safe and to bring about accountability for Police Officers. I invite ms. Lesko and any other member of this committee to come out and watch some movies let us in this autonomous zone. Have some fun with the protesters who are really building community, and demanding that we actually address this. That is what we should be focused on here. I can assure you seattle continues to be a place of peaceful protest. I am prickly proud up i am frankly proud of our city of deescalating in response to all of the calls. I think our leaders have started to see that the whole point here is that we need a different response that a military response. And that is what the autonomous zone has been about. It is a peaceful protest zone. I would encourage my colleagues on the others of the aisle to stop their continuing falsehoods about my district. I do not think you would like it if i said these things about your district. Stop saying it about mine. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i yell yield back. Chair the gentleman is recognized. The poetry readers took over a Police Precinct. I want to thank the gentlelady from arizona for offering her amendment. As well as being a member of this committee and the ranking never of the Small Business committee, i am also on the Foreign Affairs committee. The ranking member. On the Foreign Affairs committee and has been a centerpiece of American Foreign policy for a long time, to encourage rule of law to other countries all across the globe. Particularly in the developing world, but all of the globe. That is what we stand for, rule of law. That means we have certain ways we elect people. And they enact legislation for us. We have leaders, may always mayors, council, who are supposed to oversee the police to environment and civilian control and all the rest. Oversee the Police Department and civilian control. These are part of rule of rule of law we encourage across the globe. In seattle instead of rule of law there was mob rule, a Police Precinct and a considerable portion of an American City has been taken over by a group of people no one has elected who have no legal standing to do what they have done. The leaders of the insurrection have presumptuously renamed the area they have seized. Whatever they call themselves, if they are breaking the laws of their city and their state, with impunity, the city and state of washington have essentially surrendered to the mob and allowed rule of law, which we have promoted across the globe, to become a joke, at least in this once great American City. The mob has their demands, they always do and they could be right out of Bernie Sanders playbook. They are to managing not asking, to abolish Police Department, to abolish the court, to abolish ice, no more jails, all prisoners can vote, not sure how they will do that if there are no more jails. Free college, free health care, rent control, you name it. Most of the occupiers demands are pretty much standard stuff nowadays. Some of the stuff is nuts, abolishing place departments, abolishing the courts. Other things sound nice, free college, free health care, free, you name it. Lets face it, none of this is free because the taxpayers pay for it. The taxpayers always foot the bill. The concern is that this sort of mob rule could spread to other cities across america. This amendment would go a long way to ensuring goodwill and common sense prevail and rule of law. So i commend the gentlelady from arizona for offering her amendment and i will now yield to the ranking member. The gentlelady from washington said we should stop talking about her district and we would not want anyone talking about our district. There is no other entendres there is no other autonomous zone in the country which she described as a peaceful zone where they watch movies and read poetry. That does not talk about the fact that the police had to retreat. The precinct building is now controlled by who knows who. It is not controlled by the police. That is the concern here, that is what this is about and why we support the gentlelady from arizonas amendment. There seems to be a good amount of dispute as to what life was like. Peaceful, Poetry Community garden and we see these report of rapes and delayed response time, video of people assaulting each other. Would you be willing to host a congressional delegation so we might all be able to go there and show the country what is happening, observe it in real time. Is something the majority would like spread across the country, whether he would be willing to lead it. The time of the gentleman has expired. To what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition . Moved to strike the last word. Recognized. Eman is i rise in opposition to the amendment for a couple of reasons. I think the gentlelady from washington for sharing what is actually happening in her own district. Peacefulest is part of protests across america and protesting and demanding change is as american as it gets. Ofyou look at the definition autonomous zone, it means a zone in a unit of local government that is autonomous from the local government. That is a legal impossibility. A group of persons cannot declare that a part of the city is not subject to the jurisdiction of that city. We have a City Government managing a peaceful protest by claiming creating a place where people are going to create the opportunity for their voices to be heard. Your definition does not exist as a matter of luck. No group of citizens and declared themselves not a legal part of the authority of the jurisdiction in which they exist. Your amendment says its up to the attorney general of the United States. He can decide, i think thats an autonomous zone and deny federal funding. This is fraught with. Extraordinary problems. And undermines the ability of people in this country to peacefully assemble. Whats shocking to me is that in the middle of the biggest protests may be in our lifetime, thousands and thousands of people across the country demanding change that my republican colleagues would spend time not focused on the Important Police reforms in this bill, but again an effort to mischaracterize and distract. The protests of people in this country are unimportant reason we are here today an important reason we are here today because they are demanding change. Make sometests might folks uncomfortable but it is causing action to finally be taken. I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlelady from washington. Thank you. I just again want to say, i dont know how to keep telling people that what they are saying are lies. I am stunned that people continue to do that. Others have said that the seattle Police Department east precinct was taken over by protesters. Hat is incorrect on on the ground commander did not follow the command of the police chief and decided to retreat. Nobody has taken over that building. There is no protesters inside. There is nobody blocking the ability of the Seattle Police to come back. The seattle Police Department and the mayor are in close touch with protesters. They are managing the protests in a way that is completely peaceful. Please do not continue to say these things. To postings admitted pictures that were manipulated, digitally manipulated. Will the gentlelady yield . Thank you. Fox news has continued to post information that is incorrect. Lets go that are not seattle. Please stop this nonsense and lets get back to the bill at hand. I yield back. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. For what purposes does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to respond to a couple of things we have heard. Her, shes a friend. I trust her eyewitness account. We are not seeing just doctored pictures of this. There is a lot of film on this. I have seen this on cnn and even msnbc news. There is graffiti everywhere, looks to the average american like lawlessness because thats what it is. In the other peaceful protest around the country, they are not self describing as lawenforcement free micro space. That is how the organizers describe themselves. Lawenforcement free micro space within a state in this country. That is the definition of anarchy. Lawenforcement free is without the rule of law. There is no other definition that fits this. It is sort of comical that some of you say we are misportraying this. Is it ok if they refuse to abide by the law are specifically, the federal law . Should they be entitled to federal funding . Should they have water and sewer . Wifi and cell service . Should they have Police Protection . It is claimed that that is around the perimeter of this thing but what about inside . Very serious is and is directly relevant to what we are doing. It is certainly germane. It restricts funding under the Community Oriented policing grant fundingurn programs to the department of justice for localities that refuse to enforce the law and allow for autonomous territories to be established on u. S. Soil. This is unprecedented because it is absolutely crazy. You can call it an Arts Festival or whatever it is. The people inside there are ignoring the law. It is not lawful to go around and paint a Police Station with graffiti. We are a nation of laws, not of men. If we abandon that, we abandon who we are as a people. This is a republic with democratic principles. In a constitutional republic, you have to have the rule of law. This is government of, by, and for the people. The police are an extension of the people. That is who we are in this country. There may be other places on the global where you can engage in this kind of anarchy but not in america. If they are not going to play by the rules and abide by the law, they should not be able to get federal funds to that jurisdiction. Thats a very meaningful amendment. We are drilling with limited federal funds. There is not a lot of communityoriented Police Services funding. The grants are limited. A lot of Law Enforcement agencies need it desperately. We hear about it all the time. If there are some of these jurisdictions that want to go down this road, they should yield their funding to those who will use and apply it lawfully and appropriately. Important debate and i think its wrong for you guys to dismiss it. The gentleman yields back. For what purposes does the gentleman from maryland sick recognition . The gentleman is recognized seek recognition . The gentleman is recognized. This is obviously another in a string of distractions from the matter at hand. I am happy to see our colleague from seattle, who looks like she has survived this outbreak of Community Gardens and block parties and movie nights in her district. Few points tod a what the gentleman from rhode island was saying about the curious language in which this amendment is offered to us. For one thing, i would think that the attorney general, who has basically made a monarch out of this, would be first to say its unconstitutional. A determination under subsection a should be made in the discretion of the. Attorney general i thought the attorney general believed in the unitary executive theory. This would seem to be a usurpation of the president s powers by the attorney general. About thea curious massively broad language of the definition of an autonomous zone, which is perfectly circular. It means a zone in a unit of local government that is autonomous from the government or authority of the jurisdiction. On that theory, i think attorney general barr could determine that lots of municipalities in the state of maryland could be termed autonomous, because they are given home rule under the counties in which they exist. There are lots of cities and towns that exist in my state that operate autonomously from the county in which they exist for different purposes. Serious we want to get about the problem of lava in this lawlessness breaking out i am having a hard time with whatever is going through, understanding mr. Raskin. Yes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Look, america has gone through of greatre in periods social stress. Everybody sees lawlessness somewhere else. I am actually not afraid of the lawlessness breaking out in seattle. I think the seattle authorities can be perfectly on top of it. I will tell you what i am actually afraid of. I am afraid of what took place between attorney general bill barr and President Trump when ,hey assembled a secret Paramilitary Force of unidentified federal officers, largely from the bureau of prisons, also from the park police, other federal agencies, unnamed, still unidentified, and they unleashed that force with teargas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets on hundreds of american citizens who were exercising their rights under the First Amendment, including a weref my constituents, who knocked over and pushed down by this force that was unleashed by the attorney general. There are six rights contained in the First Amendment and they violated every single one of those, at least five of the six and arguably the sixth. Ullyright to peacef assembled wa trampled by that force. Those people came to washington, d. C. To speak to congress about the urgent need for sweeping police reform, precisely the legislation we have come together to talk about today. Freedom of speech, obviously, freedom of press, as reporters were trampled and cameras taken out of their hands by them and pushed to the side. You can read the reportage of the journalist who got caught up in bill barr and Donald Trumpss police riot. As free exercise of religion the president decided to barge into the st. Johns church, prompting rebukes. And then no establishment of religion as the president took someone elses bible, turned it upside down, and waved it over his head, essentially converting his own endless lust for power into an idol above the lord of the bible. You could say he violated the First Amendment rights of all those people so he could cross the street and violate the first commandment. Thats what they did. I do see a lot of lawlessness. I trusted that attorney general who organized that spectacle and assault on the civil rights and Civil Liberties of the people to decide where money is going to go . Not me. I am going to vote against this. I yield back. For what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition . Thank you you, mr. Chairman. As someone who had an 11 month protest in my district that was drastically misrepresented by the media for 11 months, i guess i sympathize with the representative from washington. She spoke on that very protest on the floor of the u. S. House. With that, i yield to my friend from arizona. Quickly, make a point of order. Mr. Chairman come over here. Members attending remotely seem not to be complying consistently with the new house rules. Members participating remotely in a committee proceeding must continue to use the softwares video function. We have been instructed of that multiple times. It is difficult when you cannot see all of your colleagues. I just wonder if you could remind everybody of that . The point of order is not well taken. Members are participating in the hearing if they are visible. If they are not visible, they are not participating. Thats not what the rules said. That is what the rules said. Chairman, chairman, chairman the gentlelady will continue. I have a point of order to make the gentlelady will continue. The point of order is for members who are not Wearing Masks in the room. That point of order is well taken. Of course. That point of order is well taken. It was made by a democrat. Thats not a house rule, mr. Chairman. Members will put on their masks. We voted on that last one. Is not obeying the rules. Will suspend. Members will put on their masks. In consideration of not bringing physical danger to their colleagues, thats everyone else in the room. The gentlelady will proceed. The gentlelady will proceed. The gentlelady will proceed. The gentlelady will proceed. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The gentlelady will proceed. If nothing else, i think this amendment points out the stark contrast between what we believe here when we have i can tell you what, my constituents do not believe that taking over part of a city is like peaceful protests. And taking over a Police Precinct is part of a peaceful protest. It was just this love and, you in one way im sad and in another way its good we are pointing out what a differences between what we believe in. Constituents in my district think its totally nuts. That, mr. Chair, i will yield back. Thegentlelady 80 gentlelady yields back. What purposes the gentleman in california secret mission seek recognition . I moved to strike your last word. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you. We are here today because our government has murdered black americans repeatedly. Civilianncerned about leftwing groups and rightwing groups, sure. Is there an issue of possible censorship by social media platforms, maybe. Is there an issue related to protests in seattle, sure. That has nothing to do with Police Killing lack americans. Black americans. I want to bring up something in richmond. It is offensive to many of us when my republican colleagues bring up random issues that have nothing to do with how we control our government from killing black americans. That iyou to understand will never understand what its like to be a black american. I can imagine what it might be its like know what being Asian American though. I know that when the president of the United States says chinese virus and causes hate crimes to rise across america, that affects me. To gog my parents not outside for fear of being harassed. When Asian American family get stabbed because people think they are spreading coronavirus, that is very disturbing. But i dont fear for my life from the police and my children do not either. I dont have to have that talk with my kids. To theyericans to pray fear for their lives because the police of systematically killed many of them. Just today, charges were brought against the two officers that shot a black american running away from them. I want my colleagues to see whites offensive at this hearing while youre talking about google and twitter and protests in seattle, these have nothing to do with officers murdering black americans. It is offensive when you bring up these random issues. I wanted to have some humility and understand why many of our minorities get offended by your tactics and just stop at the random amendments and comments on issues that have nothing to do with what is captivating the American People and what is causing these protests, pulleys murdering black americans. Distractions. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I want to announce in accordance with what i said this morning, the attending physician of the house has said it is imperative for the health and safety of the people in this room that members wear masks. I would greatly prefer that all present uphold the quorum of the committee by complying with reasonable safety standards. I have been greatly lenient today. However a will tell you now that anyone who is not wearing a mask will not be recognized to speak. Miss escobar. N miss escobar is recognized. Mcclintock has tried mccree repeatedly to make his point. Thank you mr. Chairman. Its our side, you just had a democrat speak. Miss escobar has the top no she doesnt. Lou just spoke. Lieu. Mr. Mcclintock has tried several times on a point of order. Who seeks recognition to speak. I seek recognition for a point of parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman will say his point of parliamentary inquiry. Id like to chairman to set cite the house rule to wear a mask and house proceedings. If we had a vote i dont recall. If we have such a vote i will vote against it, but i will be happy to abide by it if the house so decides. Until then, i would like you to cite me that rule since i obviously dont number that vote. The chairs authority to preserve order in the quorum derives from the speakers Enforcement Authority under course to rule one heard pursuant to clause one of rule 11, the rules of the house rules and subcommittees, Committee Chairs have long been responsible for the enforcement of general to quorum in respect to committees. Mr. Chairman says nothing yes it is. I am forcing general decorum. Decorum amounting to the safety of the members of the committee. Mr. Chairman i moved to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you. You choose to wear masks or, i do not. I ask you to respect my choice as i respect yours. It is not your choice mr. Chairman i dont yield my time. I consider masks much more effective at spreading panic and much less effective at stopping a virus for anyone who is under 50 and healthy is less severe than been for anyone under 50 and let healthy is less severe than the flu. The chair has recommended Wearing Masks when we are not speaking, but that they are not necessary when we are speaking. Oddly we are told by Health Experts that masks are most recommended while speaking. Which leads me to believe that there is more virtue signaling than virtue in all of this. The attending physician of the house has made the decision and it is safe therefore the prerogative of the speaker and through the speaker in the Committee Chairman to enforce to quorum means enforcing safety as defined by the attending physician and i am doing that and members who do not wear masks will not be recognized. That is the least that i can do. Mr. Chairman. Who seeks recognition. I move to strike the last word. Comments igin these have to say how stunning it is that there are so many of our colleagues who have such little healthfor safety and for and are willing to put their colleagues at such risk, it really is a stunning and unfortunate statement they are making burden but to the point i would like to make, i want to tell my colleague that i absolutely feel your pain. I am so sympathetic to what youre going through and to hear your community maligned. Community is like mine on the southern border have long been maligned by our republican colleagues and we have been on their target list for hyperbole. I think what is clear here is that they have this desperate need for a bogeyman, whether its the southern border, seattle, there is always a community where for people who they target in order to create fear. , its aay to divide us way to incite fear in fellow americans and its a way to distract from the real challenges that we face and frankly its tragic. Its tragic that we have seen blood spilled, weve seen people shot, weve seen people suffocated by Law Enforcement officers who were supposed to protect their communities. In the majority of the people who are dying at the hands of Law Enforcement are black and Brown Brothers and sisters. And hearing intended to seek justice and reform, they turn it into an attack to distract from the challenge at hand. More than eight hours into this hearing and we are still debating amendments that have nothing to do with george floyd staff and the American Civil Rights movement that demands change from us. I want to say some into the public watching at home. Their amendments, listen to what theyve chosen to debate. Listen to their efforts to forget whatnt theyve chosen to focus on when you cried out for change. I would now like to yield to my colleague, the gentlelady from pennsylvania. Thank you to my colleague. I will take just a moment. It is dismaying, utterly dismaying the willful ignorance as to the terms of use of masks to protect yourself and others. Do have a right to not wear masks, but you dont have a right to than expose others, so why dont you do this by way of video . Colleague,my professor raskin just argued, i was thinking the very same thing. This is a stunningly inappropriate amendment. Number one it is not your district, you do not know whats going on on the ground there and we have good testimony from the representative of that district that you are misrepresenting whats going on. If the Minority Party is so concerned with the takeover of six blocks for Peaceful Protesters in seattle, where withyou, where are you now what the president did in Lafayette Square . Aided by the attorney general, using other members of his administration as props along with a borrowed bible. To try and get an iconic photo op. Where were you with that illegal action on the behalf of our president . Interrupting with Police Officers and military, with rubber bullets and tear gas the very thing that this country stands for . The ability to express i way of peaceful protests in of all places Lafayette Square. It reminds me of a bible verse that i had a hard time really understanding may be accepting. Its matthew seven. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye. How can you say to your brother let me take that speck out of your eye when all the time there is a plank in your own. With that i yield back. Mr. Chairman i would just close with this. The question occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the moment say i oppose, no. The nos have it. I call for a recorded vote. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Nadler. No. Miss loss grin. No. Miss jackson lee . Miss jackson lee votes no. Cohen, mr. Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Nson of georgia johnson of georgia, mr. Deutch, mr. Deutch votes no. Mr. Bass mr. Richman, mr. Richman votes no. Mr. Jeffrey, mr. Jeffrey votes no. , mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Sauve about snow. Mr. Lieu mr. Raskin, mr. Raskin votes no. , miss jayapal votes no. , visit miss demings votes no. Mr. Korea, mr. Caray about snow. Ms. Scanlan. Ms. Scanlan votes no. Ms. Garcia. Ms. Garcia votes no. , mr. Negus votes no. Miss mick bass votes no. Mr. Stanton, mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Means miss mcardle powell. Ms. Escobar. Ms. Escobar votes no. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Chavez,enbrenner, mr. Mr. Chavez votes vote i. Mr. Collins vote side. Mr. Buck votes aye. Mr. Robie votes no. Aye. Aetz votes mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mcclintock, mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Miss lesko votes aye. Aye. Erchant faller votes this decline votes aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Steube votes yes. Miss bass votes no. Mr. Lieu, miss Macarthur Powell. Are there any members who wish to vote who havent voted . The clerk will report. There are 12 ayes and 23 nos. Are there any further amendments . I have an amendment mr. Chairman print. Mr. Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment into the the nature of substitute to hr 7120 offered by mr. Steube of florida, strike section 362 and redesignate provisions accordingly. The gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. Thank you mr. Chairman. Ive heard a lot of talk today about the fact this bill is a reaction to george floyd staff and miss escobar was talking about the fact the amendments that have been previously offered have nothing to do george floyd staff and they should be ignored for that fact. In the bill before us today there is a ban on no knock warrants and drug cases. In drug cases. Its my understanding mr. Floyd was being arrested for a forgery situation, nothing to do with a drug case, it wasnt an execution of a drug warrant and has nothing to do with the death of george floyd. This amendment would strike section 362 of the bill. Let me put in a little bit of common sense. If youre a drug dealer and you have drugs and a Law Enforcement officer has gone through the effort of getting a probable cause affidavit and goes before a judge and has probable cause to execute a warrant on a drug dealer who has drugs, what do you think the drug dealer is going to do with those drugs if you are required to knock before the Law Enforcement officer enters . The drugs wont be there anymore because they will be flushed down the toilet. Let me give you a quick illustration. For my colleagues from florida i think this would be even more poignant to you, especially on the other side of the aisle. This is may 3, 2019. For this to be put in the record. Florida drug bust will nets enough encinal to kill 500,000 people. Investigationard resulted in the seizure of three pounds of lethal fentanyl, 75 firearms and arrest of 60 people or more. The attorney general said opioids are killing 17 people a day in florida. Died00 people couldve from the amount of fentanyl that was seized. That amount of fentanyl was three pounds, just a little tiny piece of fentanyl on your pinky finger can kill you. Ounces, ids equals 48 just happen have two yetis in my office that i frequently have in the Judiciary Committee meetings. These are 30 ounces apiece. Killnces of fentanyl would 500,000 people. This could hold 60 ounces. This would kill more than 500,000 people. If you are the fentanyl dealer in florida and the Law Enforcement agencies are required to knock on your door before they execute their warrant, what you things can full, itth two yetis will be dumped in the toilet before Law Enforcement gets there to exclude that warrant on people that are killing thousands and thousands of people in florida. Inoid overdoses in florida 2018 was 3727 deaths. Died17 it was 4280 people of overdoses from opioid and coaddictionsed and drug abuse. This officer was able to execute these warrants and arrest over 100 different people who are killing floridians every day in our streets. If we ban no knock warrants and drug cases, the moment that Law Enforcement officer knocked on the fentanyl dealers door, the heroin dealers door splicing fence known killing floridians, the amount of fentanyl is going come inmped in the sink the toilet and flushed and you are not going to be able to perpetuate and arrest because the drugs will be present at the house. And i would contend i dont know what this has to do with the george floyd case that we are here to provide justice for him. So i would contend that we take the ban on no knock warrants out and there is actually a quick little solve some of the problem. I had a colleague in my side of the aisle that has a problem with no knocks. I talked to my father was a former sheriff and they have a solution for that. In the case so we dont hit the wrong house, they have a policy in place that the drug officer in the undercover officer goes with the person executing the search warrant to ensure that they are getting the right house. Lets put that in the bill. Thosemake sure that when swat team, which typically is the one who execute search warrants noes through the drug undercover officers exactly who it is and which house it is. So you could put that in this bill and then still be taking people off the streets that could possibly kill 500,000 floridians in my state to the tune of 17 people a day. Im willing to work with you on that but im not willing to ban no knock warrant executions in the state of florida and for that i yield back. The gentleman yields back. What purpose is a gentle lady from florida seek recognition . I look to strike the last word. The gentlelady is recognized. Thank you so much mr. I certainly applaud his father in the years working did to keep our state safe. As a police chief i have managed numerous highrisk operations and i know how extreme extreme the highrisk and dangerous search it serving of warrants can be. But particularly, no knock warrants. Knows,sure mr. Steube highrisk search warrants, no knock search warrants are the highest of risk and while i applaud the deputies and officers who serve on our swat teams, david tremendous job to do, our primary responsibility is to make sure that we not only keep our officers and their deputies safe, but that we protect the public, as a former police chief was always concerned every time i swat team went out to survey no knock warrant. We know mistakes have been made and i heard your recommendation about having the drug officer out, i do appreciate that as well. But Breonna Taylor lost her life. And i know, ive witnessed people disposing of drugs and flushing drugs down the toilet when they knew police had them surrounded, but mr. Chairman, there are no amount of drugs that are more important, there are no amount of drugs that we can confiscate or Law Enforcement can confiscate that are more important than a human life. And so yet again i believe the situation this moment affords us the opportunity to right the wrongs that are out there, tighten up our policy and move forward with better legislation that protects our officers and protect the public. With that i stand in opposition of the amendment that has been proposed, but i also appreciate my colleague from florida and with that i will yield back. The gentlelady yields back. What purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania seek recognition . I moved to strike the last word. The gentlelady is recognized. Im opposed to this amendment because it undermines the purpose of the bill, not just the specific wrong that happened to george floyd, but our purpose here is to dismantle policies that disproportionately endanger black americans. Studying the issue of no knock warrants is over, just the time to study is overcome we have all the information we need to understand they are inherently dangerous. This isnt just about justice, its what the human cost. No knock warrants have taken too many lives, including that of Breonna Taylor. We cannot ignore the injustice that occurred to her, she would have been just 27 last week. Was an a daughter, she emt and she was shot at least eight times by the police as she lay in her own bed and police broke down the door of her own apartment to execute a no knock warrant. The warrant wasnt intended for Breonna Taylor or her boyfriend. In fact to target another person who lived miles away and who had already been detained by the time police entered Breonna Taylors home. The officers who executed the no knock warrant and in the process executed brought Breonna Taylor have yet to be charged and no officer has been fired. If anyone questions what we need to ban no knock warrants will reform the way policing is done in this country, look no further than that example. What happened to george floyd and Breonna Taylor in so many others is why Peaceful Protesters all over this country are chanting black lives matter. And demanding action. Its because we see over and over again that our policing system acts as if black lives dont matter. We see this when four Police Officers respond to a call that a black man mightve used a counterfeit 20 bill and that man was murdered. We see this when Police Respond to a call for help from a black woman in need of Mental Health treatment and that woman was murdered. We see this when police are called to respond to a black man selling loose cigarettes and that man, eric garner, was murdered. We see this when the Police Respond to a report a black man is sleeping in his car at a wendys and that man was murdered. We see this when Police Execute a botched no knock drug warrant, toss a flash grenade into the home of a black woman getting dressed for work, police had the wrong apartment again and that woman was murdered. Sayur Justice System, we that people are innocent until proven guilty, but under our current system, black americans are denied justice. In practice, our system has a resumption of guilt simply for being black. Think of Breonna Taylors case, she wasnt guilty of any crime, the only thing she was guilty of was being black and asleep in her own bed in her own home. All lives cannot matter until black lives matter. I oppose this amendment, weve got to do better than this and i would yield to my colleague from california. Thank you ms. Scanlan. Mr. Steube i can understand the concern here as someone is prosecuted cases with dangerous entries into homes and residences, i have two brothers you do that routinely. When a thing about what you described, i brought this up with them a couple weeks ago as we were considering this legislation and they point out to me that routinely on drug cases, what they will do to limit the contact that happens is that you can detain and arrest a subject at a different location and then at the same time simultaneously go into the house. Im sure cheap demings would also attest that is a tactic Law Enforcement uses all the time. Theres going to be danger situations where you dont want to tip off the suspects, youll have to go in with a no knock warrant. In drugare saying is situations, nonviolent situations, nonserious situations, why even increase the likelihood that you can unjustly take someones life if there are other tactics that are available that i would think address your concern that a person can destroy evidence, why not contact them on a traffic stop, execute the arrest warrant and then sees the drugs without having to have a violent encounter. Think the tenor and spirit of this legislation is to limit what happened unjustly to ms. Taylor for drug cases. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Rep. Johnson we havent had any thoughtful debate and discussion and brought in experts to testify on the issue. This is a massive change in policing for the country where we have not done our due diligence. There will be serious ramifications from tossing this baby out with the bathwater. I have talked to a lot of lawenforcement officers over the last many days as i guess some have here. Mypent a lot of time with colleague. He was telling me how many warrants he executed. He said, what you need to understand is that the no knock warrant is designed to protect public safety. It is designed to protect the officer serving the warrant and the suspect. These things,o first of all, he said it is very rare. It is difficult to obtain because you have to show that there is a person with a violent history or someone who has made a past Statement Like i wont be taken alive or that they have a record of weapons in the home, that they know they are there. That is an inherently dangerous situation for all parties involved. They time its about they go may be a 3 00 in the morning when everyone will be asleep. When someone wakes out of a slumber, they dont have time to grab their shotgun and start firing. They will cuff them and take them out and then they could do a calm search of the premises for whatever is being sought. Save lives,gned to not violate Fourth Amendment rights. It has worked effectively in the rare cases it is executed. Saying there have not been outrageous abuses of this. The houselectively as Judiciary Committee, look into these specifics and fine tune this so that it works for everyone. Law enforcement and anyone of any race. It takes time to do this. I know we all want to rush to get a solution. There is a republican bill being introduced in the house tomorrow. We all want to find solutions, but we have to come to the right solutions. Endanger lawt to enforcement. What if it is your brother or sister, a young rookie cop. We are concerned about their safety, too. Out, i thinkrow it we open a pandoras box. Lees dont say that we dont understand the gravity of it. This quite the opposite. What we are saying is lets do with this committee is designed to do and go through this methodically so that we can make changes that will actually solve the problem and keep everyone safe. i appreciate the tenor i appreciate the tenor of your remarks. What are the provisions related to no knock in that bill . Rep. Johnson it is not even in legislative text yet. No problem saying you would join it. Rep. Johnson that is exactly my point. The reason i would not support legislation on that is because we havent studied that yet. We have not done our job here. To paint it with this broad brush and throw this out and jeopardize not only drug convictions, but the safety of the officers who we are sending out on that line to serve these warrants. That is what we are concerned about. Please dont make it about anything else. It is disingenuous and not fair to us. I have got family members who are in Law Enforcement. I worry about their safety. They are being cigna ties to stigmatized right now and hunted down and they protect society. We ought to keep that in mind. We want to protect black lives, and all lives, including those who put theirs on the line to maintain the rule of law and safety. Im sorry i get emotional about this, but it is an emotional subject. I yield back. I appreciate the gentleman from louisianas emotion. All, this day, had a moment of emotion and continue to be in pain. I do want to just take a moment to enforce the words of the chairman as it relates to covid19 and just make mention of a congressperson from South Carolina whose name i will not call who did not wear a mask and has indicated that he, his wife and child have covid19. We are not frivolous in our calls for a mask to protect all of us. I would hope my colleagues would adhere to that. I would have offered an objection to the gentlemans amendment from florida, but i chose not to do so and to allow this debate and to indicate that it was germane in what it spoke to in the bill. Has evidenced his emotion, it is important to reassert that not one member of this committee, no matter what their party, has not embraced the value of Law Enforcement, the desire for them to go home to their families and them to a safe. Section onoving the no knocks does quite the opposite. Case, aneonna taylor officer was shot and Breonna Taylor was killed. Any one of us who have had the responsibility of signing probable cause warrants, know that our task is to be thorough, but quick. Who areicers come in usually undercover, whatever level court you are in, it depends on the level pc you are reviewing. All of them can cause harm to approach,e home you or the actual Law Enforcement officer. I think that the approach of the gentleman is not correct. Knocks do cause lossoflife. We had that happen in houston, texas. Residents whodead didnt know who was coming in. Criticallyicers wounded. One paralyzed temporarily, i believe. Massive confusion and this happens all over america. Scenarios creates an increasedmoment of death or injury. Bystanders are also caught in the crossfire. You cannot deny what happened to Breonna Taylor. Here is another point. No knock is relevant because the bill is about transforming policing in america. Getting new ideas and new approaches to do what is expected of Law Enforcement. That is to secure the community and protect and serve, but to do it in a way to minimize loss of life, whether it is the officer or it happens to be the person engaged with the officer. That does not seem to happen with no knock. Way to the floor, there are other options to look at some of the thoughts mr. Johnson may have. Im not prepared to accept the gentlemans amendment from florida because i truly think there is enough documentation even if we use Breonna Taylor and many other examples. Examplesfind many where there was lossoflife unnecessarily because of no knocks. As i listen to the words of another colleague, you know where the house is. The drugs dont disappear. A traffic stop or arrest a person elsewhere and have officers at that very time surround the home and secure the drugs. It is creative policing. It is policing to protect the community, but to save lives. Why are we here . We want to transform policing. Of that is law and order with safety and security unless in lossoflife. Police at the nations films and movies. It is all about bloodshed. In real life, you dont get up again to play another role. I think we need to get rid of no knock to save lives. I asked to strike the last word. I will very quickly respond to what i believe is a wellintentioned amendment. That thest reiterate no knock warrant actually puts the police in as much danger as it does the occupant of the home. People 2010 and 2016, 94 lost their life in the execution of a no knock warrant. 94 were Police Officers. If we look at the day and age that we are in with stand your and other selfdefense statutes regarding the home, it is just as dangerous for Police Officers as it is for citizens. Like for unanimous consent to submit a st. Johns article to knock or not to knock no knock warrants and confrontational policing. Without objection. Thank you. Story of aells the awakened in december 2014 by a team of new york Police Officers. When he heard his door kicked in , he remained in the bed because he was scared. He was 92 years old. Saw a man pushing his brotherinlaw, a 69yearold man into the room. The man was asking, what is happening. And then he heard a shot. The 69yearold in the chest and killed him. This did not have to happen. What we are saying here, and i noweve that with technology and intelligent policing, there are multiple alternatives to a no knock warrant and we should not put our officers lives in jeopardy, and we certainly shouldnt create an instance where someone in their home heres someone kick their door down and has to make that same splitsecond decision without any training whether it is friend or foe coming through the front door. You, and totell whoever is listening, that if someone kicks in my front door, they will not be greeted with a hug or smile whether friend or foe because im going to imagine that they are foe just like i believe any protector of the home would believe. While i think this is wellintentioned, i would just say that i think the Law Enforcement Community Comes down on both sides of this issue. If we lost 94 people in a span of six years, then i believe that is 94 lives we should still have. That is 13 Law Enforcement officers that we didnt have to lose. Of the billion saves those 94 lives, i will always side on the side of caution in saving lives. With that, i tear up i yield back. What purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . Strike the last word. I agree with mr. Richmond on this. Some armed intruder barges into my house at 2 00 in the morning, there is going to be gunfire. Pitt put it this way, the poorest man in his cottage may be defiance to all of the forces of the crown. It may be frail, its ruth may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the king of england cannot enter. All of its forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. I think the most terrifying power the government has is to cross that threshold. Can only do so under the authority of a judicial warrant. That authority absolutely has to be announced before that power is exercised. This is not only to protect the citizen, i believe it also protects the officers from such an unnecessary confrontation. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment . Sorry, the tenement from north dakota. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would want to learn a lot more data about the 13 People Killed and the warrants issued because when used properly, they are seriousd in the most situations. I think i, this from a little different standpoint and this is maybe a little bit of federalism. The problem with no knock warrants isnt that they exist, the problem is that they are abused. The problem is that these tragedies occur in the problem is that when other people do it right now we are going to ban it. Strictakota has a very policy. You need to have a probable cause finding by a judge with findings in that warrant regarding destruction of evidence, danger to yourself, danger to your community. The vast majority of drug cases that i have ever seen or witnessed in or, have no reason to have a no knock warrant. We went through a pretty significant methamphetamine crisis in our state and in our region. Im not sure if most of you are aware, but people who are addicted to methamphetamine like guns and they like video cameras and they tend to be pretty edgy and they are not afraid to use those things. While we are dealing with these issues, i think it is important to recognize that if there are problems with this and tragedies that occur, i understand that. I wish they didnt happen, but there are other places that has figured out how to do these things. We are going to take a topdown approach and ban them nationwide. Regardless of what is going on in any particular state or any jurisdiction in dealing with those things, and we are going to do it again. Every one of these sections should have had a hearing. If we wanted to do this this fast, we should have had one one and we should have had one and we should have had one and we should have markup because i have worked on criminal Justice Reform my entire adult life. I agree with the senator from georgia when he spoke earlier that there are a lot of things that go into this and to make sure you get it right. Im just telling you that there are places that get it right and that have real safeguards in place to not only protect the people where the warrant is being issued, but also officers safety in situations that can only be described as dangerous. Will the gentleman yield . I will. A thoughtful discussion. The only addition i would make is again with the Breonna Taylor case. You are right. There are thoughtful ways to look at no knock. I want to refer you to the fact that the legislation we have is on federal no knock. The difficulty is when you see cases like Breonna Taylor, which is a model for what not to do, because in that instance, the person was in custody. What happened is that a person, unsuspecting of someone breaking into their house in the dark of night, that person created havoc home, shopng their and officer and then a barrage of gunfire against the young woman by the name of ms. Taylor. There is too much room for havoc. I do think that what we will find is being successful on the federal level and that local authorities, states and local governments will begin to redefine how they do no knock. Some may decide to abolish it. Others may do something otherwise, but what we are doing here is setting a transformational model to try and save lives. I yield back to the gentleman. I am hopeful that occurs. Redone ourave federal resentencing guidelines and many states have been slow to respond to that. Im hopefully you are correct. With that, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the amendment. The nos have it. Is there any i ask for a recorded vote. Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohan votes no. Mr. Deutch . Mr. Deutch votes no. Ms. Bass . Bass votes no. Mr. Richmond . Mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Jeffries . Mr. Jeffries votes no. Mr. Cicilline . Mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Lieu . Mr. Lieu votes no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Ms. Demings . Ms. Demings votes no. Mr. Correa votes no. Ms. Scanlan votes no. Ms. Garcia votes no. Mr. Stanton . Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Escobar . Ms. Escobar votes no. Mr. Jordan . Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Chabot . Chabot votes aye. Mr. Buck . Mr. Buck votes aye. Ms. Roby . Aye. Oby votes mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock . Mr. Mcclintock votes no. Mr. Cline . Mr. Cline votes aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Is there anyone who has not voted that wishes to vote . Record the vote. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 ayes and 24 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments . What purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment on the desk. Amendment to the amendment to substitute hr 7120. On page 71 after line 20, insert the following. The gentleman is recognized for the purposes of explaining the amendment. Thank you. As my colleagues might have noticed, i voted against the amendment to remove the provisions that the majority had included regarding no knock warrants. For those keeping track of this multifaceted bill, the current democratic majority in the house wants to end the snow knock warrants. Based on what i have seen, he i have seen from mr. Scott, he says he would like to study no knock warrants. A study would be appropriate for precisely all the reasons mr. Johnson identified. We want to collect data on where these no knock warrants are being deployed is there a , disparity on race or geography . Is there a disparity on how urban or compact the district is or simply the personnel . But i do not believe that while we are studying the question of no knock warrants, that we ought to let cases like Breonna Taylor pile up. I do not believe americans should have to die while the government is studying something when we have seen such a catastrophic impact of the no knock regime in some cases. I also philosophically agree with what mr. Mcclintock has said about the sanctity of the those of us that have a bit of a libertarian streak or a constitutional streak, we view the home as the castle. It is an extreme use of government power to enter someones home. I come with this amendment to try to bridge the gap, to try to offer the study that senator scott believes is important, that mr. Johnson clarified, while at the same time, not allowing these no knock warrant and drug cases, pursuant to the ideas that chairman nadler and representative bachus has said bass haventative suggested. I think this will tell us whether or not we are desirous of having a bill. We all know that with the republican control in the senate, we will have to Work Together on some of these things to get the president to sign the legislation. It would be very sad to me, if we allowed perfect to be the enemy of the good. And if my colleagues in the majority rejected an amendment that did what they wanted, while collecting the information that i think would be unassailably helpful. I offer that amendment in good faith. I yield back. For what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition . Myecognize myself in position to the amendment. The amendment purports to authorize the study after the ban of the no knock goes into effect. After the ban of no not goes into effect, there is nothing to study. It is a wasteful amendment. I urge opposition to the amendment because the urgency of enacting the ban on knock contained in the bill is urgent to prevent further death. This amendment is very pernicious. I yield to the gentlelady from texas. Mr. Chairman, i withdraw my objection at this time. I yield back. Who seeks recognition . The gentleman from ohio. I would yield time to the gentleman. I think the gentleman from yielding. To use a term i wouldnt normally use, the objection to my amendment is nonsense. The objection to my eminent is that we have to be in a rush to end no knock warrants in drug cases. The amendment ends and on knock warrants in drug cases, but just during the duration of a study so it can find out what is going on. Is it really true that my friends in the majority are not curious about the deployment of no knock warrants . The only other substantive point that the gentleman made in my amendment is that they would be nothing to study because no knock warrants wouldnt be happening anymore. I know how bright my democratic colleagues are. I know that with all of the no knock warrants that have already occurred, with the deaths like Breonna Taylors, we ought to get more information. If anything, it would inform our future policy choices. You are going to have to work with the senate, the administration and with some republicans. On this issue, i agree with the challenges of no knock warrants. If the only argument against my amendment is that ending no knock warrants are urgent and that the study is pernicious, you all know those arguments are not being made in good faith. For those watching at home, they want to end the hearing saying they took no republican amendments. There is no other reason for you not to take this amendment. Ofoted with you against some my republican colleagues on matters of policy when i thought that we could come together. Why not take a republican amendment and work with this. I wish this were not the case, but i fear that the majority in this committee is so captive to the radical left, so captive to the people who really want to defund the police. I take some of you at your word that you do not want to defund the police. Even if you dont want to defund the police, if you are so afraid of the elements of your party that do, that you are unwilling to accept any republican amendment, even an amendment that does what you want, while gathering information about the things that you care about, it shows what a farce this has been, particularly in a hearing where our sincerity has been called into question, where our commitment to our own family members has been called into question. It really troubles me that you would be so close minded. By the way, you are not hurting us by doing this. You are hurting the next Breonna Taylor, the next person that could be negatively impacted, so please. I know you have rushed this bill and i know that you do not want to have substantive hearings the issues, but at least do not be opposed to the collection of information that might help us on future discussions that we could have on policing. I would love to hear any real substantive objections to my amendment. I dont think the chairman understands the objection. You just want to end today saying you took no republican amendments. That is what this is really bad about and i am saddened by that because we have come here to Work Together. I yield back. I think the gentleman, well said. The question occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. The nos have it. I request a recorded vote. A recorded vote is requested. Mr. Nadler . Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Lofgren votes no. Ms. Jackson lee . Ms. Jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen . Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutch votes no. Ms. Bass . Mr. Richmond . Mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Jeffries . Mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Swalwell . Lieu . Mr. Lieu votes no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Ms. Jayapal votes no. Mr. Correa votes no. Ms. Scanlan votes no. Ms. Garcia votes no. Mr. Neguse votes no. Mcbath votes no. Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Dean . Mucarselpowell votes no. Ms. Escobar votes no. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Chabot votes aye. Mr. Collins votes aye. Aye. Uck votes ms. Roby votes aye. Aye. Aetz votes mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Mr. Cline votes aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Steube votes no. Any other members who wish to vote . You are not recorded. Swalwell votes no. Ms. Dean votes no. Any other members . Aye. Eschenthaler votes the clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 24 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The gentleman has an amendment on the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. The gentlelady reserves the point of order. Amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute for hr 7120 offered by mr. Klein cline of virginia. The gentleman is recognized for the purpose of explaining his amendment. I bring this amendment because i am tired of hardworking men and women in Law Enforcement getting a bad rap for the actions of one officer. Departments being criticized because of one racist in their department. This amendment would go to two key points with a goal of transparency and accountability. I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the bill to articles. The first of titled fired and rehired. The second, Police Unions and Police Misconduct. What the Research Says about the connection from the washington post. Without objection. This amendment would ensure that the department of justice and attorney general are not hindered by Bargaining Agreements when working to resolve patterns of misconduct. It would ensure that federal resources go to state and local Law Enforcement agencies that avoid these provisions occasionally found in Bargaining Agreements that avoid accountability. Provisions that would delay officer interviews or interrogations for a set period of time, anything that would provide officers with access to the evidence against them prior to questioning, mandating the description of disciplinary records including statutes of limitations for investigations of misconduct, bans on anonymous complaints, mandatory arbitration or discipline complaints. Madam chair, i would say that the vast majority of Law Enforcement officers serve with distinction and honor across our nation every day. Unfortunately in some states, some officers have been shielded by collective Bargaining Agreements making it impossible to remove officers with extensive history of histories of misconduct. We saw that most recently in the george floyd case. It leaves few options to hold bad actors accountable. Further collective Bargaining Agreements have been linked to an increase in violent incidents involving Law Enforcement officers. One study found a 40 increase in violent incidents in florida after a change in collective bargaining laws there. In 2006, the bureau of justice statistics issued a report and found the Law Enforcement agencies operating under a collective Bargaining Agreement garnered 9. 9 complaints for every 100 officers compared with only 7. 3 for nonunionized agencies. During the disciplinary process, only 7 of the complaints were sustained or found to have merit in departments with collective Bargaining Agreements. In agencies without unions, the sustained rate was almost doubled at 15 . Currently, the attorney general has the authority under the Violent Crime and enforcement act to investigate and reform departments. The department of justice is often unable to compel changes that could be construed as altering collective Bargaining Agreements negotiated by local unions. We need to adopt policies to correct this problem and support the many departments across the country that are making transparency and accountability a priority. Finally, by ensuring our local and state police do not have their hands tied by Union Contracts, departments will be able to make hiring and firing decisions based on performance. It is my hope that by adopting this amendment, we can prevent future tragedies like the ones that took George Floyds one life. Ir to my colleagues to support this adoption to strengthen this bill. I yield back. Thank you. I recognize myself. I think we have a fundamental issue here. Because while private sector Union Bargaining rules are governed by federal laws, our Public Sector unions are under state jurisdiction. I think we have some fundamental questions about what we can reach with this federal legislation. Chair, i would say that this does not affect those agreements at all, directly. All it does is say that eligibility for federal funding would depend on whether or not those agreements included these types of egregious provisions, that i think we would all agree, being able to destroy disciplinary records is not something we want in collective Bargaining Agreements, in local police policy. Mandatory arbitration of complaints is not something that we all want. Bans on anonymous complaints . Statues of limitations . For the investigations of misconduct . Those are not policies that we want in our local Police Department, so lets use tools that we have. Ok, reclaiming my time. I think the issue is whether we ore these tools and whether too coercive. Not it is i would argue it is not. So noted. I do not think there is a rejection out of hand. I think it is about the format. We would like to look at this further and move forward. I would yield back my time. I am unable to withdraw my amendment, but i am happy to have the discussion right now. Madam chair, i seek recognition to your right. The gentleman from tennessee. Can i offer a motion that says that we can put his amendment down and go on to some other amendments . Maybe we can work with you before it gets to the floor. If he wants to withdraw, he can withdraw. If he chooses not to, then we will proceed. Can you put it down a couple . Why not . This is the amendment under consideration. My understanding is that we cannot do that. Who seeks recognition . Gentleman from rhode island. Thank you. There is a lot of discussion occurring about collective Bargaining Agreements and whether or not there are agreements which are impediments to reforming Police Departments and whether state statutes of Law Enforcement rights which are also an impediment. The flipside of that is that they can often serve as a vehicle to bring real reform. I think the amendment raises some important questions about some provisions of collective Bargaining Agreements. As i said to my friend that collective Bargaining Agreements are in agreement between two an agreement of two parties. They are contrary to the Public Interest or impeding good Law Enforcement or the ability to hold Police Officers accountable. It is the agreement of the government agent, whether it is the mayor or city council, who have agreed to those provisions. I do think it calls into question about whether or not those responsible for making those judgments and collective agreements to consider a range of other approaches, particularly in light of recent events that we have seen in our country. I do think the danger of intruding upon what is such a sacred responsibility between the employer and employee to negotiate in good faith that is a contract that has obligations on both sides. I am fearful that the federal government coming in and inserting itself into collective bargaining proceedings will have a very damaging and negative impact on the ability of workers to negotiate wages and benefits and working conditions consistent with their best interest. I think what the amendment really points to is that we need to call upon folks on the others of the negotiating table to be sure they are fighting for contracts which not only provide the right benefits, wages and protections, but also protect the ability of local governments to hold Police Officers accountable to properly discipline them to look at statues that might impede that. It seems that is the right approach rather than going behind the collective Bargaining Agreement. And really undermine what is so important. I do not know if we have the ability, legally to intrude upon what is essentially a contract between employers and employees. I think the amendment raises important questions. I know a lot of those conversations are happening in states and cities across the country, but i think sensitizing people to negotiating contracts that achieve both objectives, providing wages and benefits and safe working conditions for Police Officers, at the same time, ensuring that municipalities and state governments have the ability to hold Police Officers accountable and properly discipline officers who require discipline and some of the other issues raised in the amendment are really important. I think the gentleman for raising the issue. Protecting the Bargaining Agreement is important. Holding people accountable in those agreements really matters. I will take a moment. Thank you very much, mr. Cicilline, and to the donovan, mr. Cline the gentleman, mr. Cline. I think there is a key to the issue of two parties negotiating an agreement. And we leap into it from the federal government and in essence, i wouldnt say untangle it, but take its legs off of it. I think that is troubling to me. In addition, we are trying to be transformational. Part of the work we are doing in this bill is to give local governments the opportunity to work directly with their Law Enforcement to be transformational. Your issue may be one that they consider and i would be hesitant to interfere with the collective bargaining process. With that, i yield back. I think that gentlelady for her comments and i think the gentleman from rhode island as well. I would respond by saying that in many ways, this bill does just that, inserting the federal government into what is often a local or state decisionmaking process because one of the parties in that collective Bargaining Agreement is the state or local government which has a proper role here in using federal funds to encourage certain behaviors or certain agreements. And essentially, give a backbone to those local officials who you would like to see take a firmer stand and get more successful collective Bargaining Agreements as a result and not have these offensive provisions in them. Rather thanagement requirement. It is not coercion, it is simply using the tools that we have to achieve a result, much as the rest of this bill does. I yield back. Thank you, and for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition . So recognized. This is interesting. What was really said about this bill is that yes, we understand the problems with the collective Bargaining Agreement that keeps us from getting at the real root of investigating and making transformational change and studying how what happens in a law situation and how they are protected and other things. But yet, it is also very interesting to hear the mental gymnastics that i just heard to go through to say that there are certain areas that we should not touch. And im not sure we can when that is what we do all the time. We wanted people to wear seatbelts and what did we do . We withheld money from states and localities. We wanted people to do other things. We would drag money and say you cant have it. This is exactly what is happening. The problem is that we have a bill that you insert into areas of state and local control. We talked about no knock warrant. The issues of chokeholds and other issues. We are asserting ourselves, even in this bill. I understand this is a difficult situation because it puts us at odds with two power bases. One being a Union Collective Bargaining Agreement that we dont want to get in the middle of, but also saying that we have to deal with these collective Bargaining Agreements because they are the very issues that cause us to have issues and prosecutions of cops that shouldnt have done bad things. If the concern is putting us in a bad spot, we need to be go back and reexamine how we do everything in washington. I do not want to see another Clean Air Act or a transportation bill. I dont want to see another criminal anything that you want to put in there that coerces states or tells estates how they have to do something without them being involved. Do to say you dont have to it, but youre are not getting the money. To say this is a problem, one of the things that we have to officersd is that most that are not under a collective Bargaining Agreement wont leave bad actors out. They dont like the way this is set up and they see it as protection. We see the problems that have been affected. I understand it puts many in a bad position because you do not want to go into the collective Bargaining Agreement. Where is that ever a concern when we actually passed health care and forced you to make a choice in a private agreement of insurance, that you have to buy it. There is other issues that we could go on and on and talk about. But to say that the federal government should get involved in Everything Else let me rephrase it. You can get involved in Everything Else, but be very careful about going into a collective Bargaining Agreement. Even if it is by itself i appreciate the gentleman he is right. There needs to be better agreements. Until there is force put on these agreements, you will not see them get better because the unions do what they need to do, rightfully so. I am not taking away from what they do. That is why they are there, to get as much as they can for the people they represent. The cities and states are there to represent the cities and taxpayers, but when you have issues like we are dealing with here and he want to talk transformational change, if we really want to do that, and i know that you do. I do. These parameters have to be set. With that, i just want to say look, i know this may be sticky, but it is actually goes to the very heart of the issue. For that, i yield. As i said, this is a National Problem and one article i included says that between 2006 and 2017 here in washington, officers firede from for misconduct were rehired on appeal. 70 of officers fired were rehired on appeal. That is an issue. We need to make sure that the bad apples are thrown out and kept out. With that, i yield back. I am reclaiming my time. Lets think about this. Go back to george floyd. The officer who killed him had 18 reprimands that were never punished. At least in what we have seen. These are things that are covered and left out of collective Bargaining Agreements. When they do get rehired, they go back through the process are basically they have to wait. That normal defendants are never allowed to really be a part of our bound into these collective Bargaining Agreements. I appreciate the gentleman having it, i think it is a great discussion for us to have. I appreciate him bringing that. Lets dont kid ourselves, the federal Government Forces states and localities and citizens every day up here. This is what this is about. I yield back. Who seeks recognition . For what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition . Move to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, madam chair. With all of the jargon and technical debate on the subject, it is easy to see what is going on. This amendment tests whether or not black lives matter to the majority as much as their fidelity to organized labor does. Everyone on this committee and most people in america know that there are circumstances where Police Unions protect bad cops. And while we certainly have to have unions and collective Bargaining Agreements good enough and Strong Enough to protect good cops and whistleblowers that might see improper behavior on the force, we dont want unions so strong that bad cops can be shuttled around. Organized labor donates disproportionately to democrats. My friend from rhode island said earlier this must be a very , difficult and hard conversation about policing for republicans, but we have seen what is uncomfortable and difficult for the democrats. That is any sort of treatment of the sacred cow that is the union world. And so mr. Cline does not seek to end collective bargaining or make it more difficult for those seeking protections of those agreements when they are doing the right thing and serving as exemplary examples of good policing. Where you do see folks deviate, where you see these clear examples where the government can do something to inform on the substance of these agreements, they dont want to do anything. The way, this whole notion well, this is too much interference in local affairs they want to take over the , training of local police and have it dictated from the federal government. There may be reasons why we can create a platform for best practices to be developed in training, but dont tell me that the very majority that wants to have the federal government during our local police is too concerned about interference in local affairs to say that there are some features of these collective Bargaining Agreements that are not contrary to Public Policy that only protect bad. I appreciate the gentlemans amendment. Again, this is an example of the black lives matter mantra serving more as a slogan than as an organizing policy principle. America should resent that because we have mechanisms in place to go after the bad cops and protect the good cops. This is all about organized labor. The funny thing is, we all know it. Everybody can talk about the features of these agreements, but everyone in america knows that there are cop unions out there that have tools to protect bad cops. Instead of protecting the citizens, the george floyd and the Breonna Taylor, they are protecting their own relationships with organized labor and unions. Just say what it is. The gentlemans amendment is well drafted and well tailored. You all should accept it. As i said previously the last , two amendments offered are amendments that do what you want to do. Perhaps if it were offered by democrats, he would take it, but you came in, the majority did, absolutely hellbent not to take any amendments from republicans. As we venture on in this experience, i think the American People should know that to get this done, we need to Work Together. These are the ideas that would allow us to, gathering more data, getting rid of bad cops, supporting good cops and ensuring we have the right tools for policing. The American People are probably sickened watching this debate because there is so much we agree on, that just out of political tribalism, you are unwilling to accept amendments. It is disingenuous and unfortunate. I yield to the donovan from virginia if he had any additional con comments. I think that the data has been collected on this issue in many different studies. It has shown that once unionized, Police Forces are more likely to keep bad apples or bad actors on their force. Study showed in analyzing 178 police Union Contracts found a number of provisions listed in the amendment that played a role in shielding officers from the consequences of misconduct. It contained one provision that could thwart disciplinary actions. This is designed to target data those bad apples, make sure they are gotten rid of and make sure they dont come back, restoring the good names of the good Law Enforcement officers out there and making sure we go to the heart of what this bill should be about, transparency and accountability. I yield back. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition . I meant to do this earlier. I have an article. Without objection. Who seeks recognition . The question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed . In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. A recorded vote is called. Mr. Nadler . Ms. Lofgren votes no. Ms. Jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutch votes no. No. Bass votes mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Jeffries . Mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Swalwell votes no. Mr. Lieu votes no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Ms. Jayapal votes no. Ms. Demings votes no. . R. Correa ms. Scanlon votes no. Ms. Garcia votes no. Mr. Neguse votes no. Ms. Mcbath votes no. Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Dean votes no. Carselpowell votes no. Ms. Escobar votes no. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Ms. Sensenbrenner . Mr. Chabot votes aye. Ayemr. Collins, mr. Collins vos aye. Votesca votes mr. Buck aye. Aye. Aetz votes mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock, mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Miss lesko votes aye. Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein votes aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Steube, mr. Steube votes yes. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes no. Are there any members who wish to have the vote recorded who have not voted . Mr. Correa votes no. Any other members who wish to vote to be recorded . The clerk will record the vote. Madam chair there are 12 ayes and 23 nos. The amended fails and is not adopted. We have to give very brief pause to reset our technical equipment. The committee will stand on recess for a couple of minutes. Thank you. The committee will come to order. Mr. Chairman i have an amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. In the nature of the substitute hr 7120 offered by mr. Steube of florida, strike section 360 five and redesignate provisions accordingly. The gentleman is recognized for the purpose of explaining his amendment. Thank you mr. Chairman. Ofs takes out section 365 the bill which calls for the demilitarization of our Law Enforcement. Again i would contend like my previous amendments i dont know what specifically this has to do with the death of george floyd or Breonna Taylor, there was not specific vehicles, aircrafts that were used in the commissions of those crimes. I will read the language that is in their so that those people watching can understand the language included in this amendment in the bill and this amendment would take this language out. Right now it would prohibit the transfer of certain women weapons, ammunition, vehicles, aircraft, silencers and other equipment to state and local Law Enforcement officers. A veryf all i think its dangerous slope we are going to go down by prohibiting transfer of certain weapons, especially those that are deemed militarized by portions on the left the like to say semiautomatic rifles ari militarized form of semiautomatic weapons, we start saying we are going to ban those for Law Enforcement agencies and they cant receive those in the next step is we ban Law Enforcement departments from being able to have semiautomatic rifles and if we can take them away from the police than the next step, if the police cant have them than we are not going to allow any citizens in our country to have semiautomatic weapons. There is a very troubling piece of this to me is most of our Law Enforcement agencies, especially Law Enforcement agencies in my district that are rural in nature and dont have the money or ability or capabilities to buy protective equipment for their officers, for example ballistic vests, ballistic shields, armor vehicles that would allow you to be protecting the officer and that execution of a warrant. There was a lot of talk earlier but no knock warrants. If youre going to a knock and announce yourself, the person r having the worn out exiting the worn on has a history of weapons and has weapons on the premises, so if we ban no knock warrants and now we are going to have Law Enforcement is going to have to announce themselves before they execute search warrant, now we are also going to take away the things that are protecting our officers from the execution of that search warrant. Why would we want to tell Law Enforcement agency you cant have ballistic vest, you can have ballistic shields, you cant have an Armored Vehicle to execute that search warrant because you will have to knock now if we are going to allow that hat to happen we are also to take away protective equipment which many lawenforcement agencies in my nine counties of which are rural and very rule in florida, they get their equipment from the sales and transfers because they can afford to get them on their own. This language takes it out and would allow Law Enforcement agencies to continue to get the agreement they need to do to do their job and protect themselves. Without a yield back. With that i yield back. The recent use by Law Enforcement agencies echoes the deployment against protesters in ferguson, missouri following the death of michael brown. This bill bans the transfer of equipment such as armed personnel carriers, longrange acoustic devices, grenade launchers, armored or weaponize drones, bayonets, flashbangs, explosives, mine resistant vehicles and combat configured aircraft. It does not ban the transfer of Office Supplies and clothing supplies which make up the overwhelming supplies transferred to the 1033 program. The bill takes a scalpel to remove military vehicles, firearms and surveillance equipment. There is good reason to do so. It iserous dangerous to allow Police Agencies to have this kind of equipment. Accordingly this is a very important part of this bill and i express my strong opposition to the amendment. I yield back. Who seeks recognition. The question occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Iposed no, definitely asked for a recorded vote. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Nadler. No. Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss lofgren, miss lofgren votes no. Mr. Cohen,ee mr. Johnson of georgia. Mr. Deutch. Mr. Deutch votes no. Miss bass. Miss bass votes no. Mr. Richmond, mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Jeffries, mr. Jeffries votes no. Mr. Cicilline, mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Swalwell, mr. Swallow votes no. Eu, mr. Lieu votes no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Ms. Jayapal, miss jayapal votes no. , ms. Demings votes no. Era votes no. Ms. Scanlan votes now. Ms. Garcia, miss garcia votes no. Mr. Negus, mr. Negus votes no. Miss mick bass votes no. Dean, miss, miss dean votes no. Miss Macarthur Powell, miss , miss escobar votes no. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Chavez,enbrenner, mr. Mr. Chavez vote side. Mr. Collins votes i. Mr. Buck votes aye. Miss robie votes aye. Aye. Aetz votes mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock votes no. Miss lesko votes aye. Mr. Russian faller vote side. Votes aye. Mr. Armstrong, mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Steube, mr. Steube votes yes. Mr. Chairman, how my recorded. Miss jackson lee, youre not recorded. I vote no. Miss jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Chairman how my recorded. Mr. Stanton you are not recorded. Mr. Stanton votes no. Miss Macarthur Powell you are not recorded. Macarthur powell, no. Are there any other members of the committee who wish to vote who havent voted . How my recorded. Mr. Johnson of georgia you are not recorded. I vote no. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Any other members who have not voted . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman there are 13 ayes and 25 nos. For our purposes, the gentle men seek recognition. I have an amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute to hr 7120 offered by mr. Gates of florida. On page 85 renumber subsequent lines appropriately. Andage 86 strike lines 23 renumber subs when lines are properly braden appropriately. The gentleman is recognized for the purposes of explaining the amendment. The gentlelady reserves a point of order. Thank you mr. Chairman. We are now debating the extent to which our military can partner with various elements of Law Enforcement in other areas of our and other areas of our government to transfer equipment that might be helpful in protecting the good guys and going after the bad guys. Mr. Steubes amendment which was rejected by the majority would have eliminated that entire policy reform area from the bill. So i offer you something that is perhaps a bit more humble and it is informed by the trips ive taken to the u. S. Mexico border led by congressman biggs. I believe it might be the case that we dont want to send military style equipment to the constables and sheriffs and Police Officers of local government. But when you are talking about border patrol, when you are talking about those who have to protect us against the cartels, particularly amassed of the southern border, its just a different fight. If the bill were to pass in its current form, the democratic majority would disarm elements of our Border Security apparatus and put them into an unfair fight with the cartels where the cartels have more weaponry than the patriotic americans who seek to protect our country. My amendment would preserve the elements of the majoritys bill that prohibit transfers to local police and sheriffs and constables, but it would still allow dod to make transfers for Border Security purposes to those elements of the federal government which could use them. There is a lot of news that would suggest that is absolute necessary. I cite an nbc news article from february 2011. Of thisstory, we learn cartel drug lord who had 20 guns amassed that our Law Enforcement had to go deal with in one of these border area skirmishes. The other side is so well armed, perhaps we shouldnt put brave americans in jeopardy. Thats not nearly as troubling as the more recent news from voa news. Com on march 14, 2020, they are talking about the changes in tactics from the cartel. In this story it talks about how the cartel carries machine guns and hand grenades and even once used rocket launchers to shoot down mexican military helicopter. Has rocketdversary launchers, grenades, if they have that type of weaponry and we were to pass a bill the democratic majority offered, we would literally be inserting some of the bravest americans into an unfair fight against those who are uniquely challenging and are uniquely dangerous. Feature of just a the fight on the u. S. Mexico border, its also something we deal with in the state of florida. It is the trump administrations good work to make the u. S. Mexico border less permissive continues, the florida straits become even more of an attractive option for drug cartels and i cite an article from 2014 that walks through the specific needs of state Law Enforcement in florida and of local Law Enforcement in florida to head off the weaponry that would allow us to fight against these cartels. They have incredible capabilities. They are multibilliondollar industries. This is not some street gang we wouldnt want to see in hummers rolling down main street america under the view the majority is taking. Please do not disarm the federal agents at our border. The others participating in Border Security from being able to win the fight and protect our great country. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The last thing this country needs is militarization of our border, the last thing this country needs is the militarization of our police. This amendment is harmful in the extreme, average opposition grade i yield back. The gentleman from ohio. Aboutjust had a debate the militarization of the border all the amendment does is it lets the good guys be on equal footing with the cartels. Why in the world would we be against that . Guys didnt like mr. Steubes amendment, it failed. Were allor our border, kinds of bad things happen. The trafficking that takes place there, all kinds of bad things happen. These cartels are ruthless. Weve all been down there. Mr. Biggs has done numerous trips to the border to see what these folks, what these bad guys are capable of doing and all the gentleman said is lets give the good guys what they need, lets help them. Thats all this is. This is as commonsense as it gets. Them have been commonsense but i support the gentlemans amendment and would yield five to the gentleman from florida. I think the gentleman for your yielding to the opposition to this amendment is nonsense