Said. He said the last thing we need is to militarize the border. I agree. The problem is the cartels get a vote. They have militarize the border. The question is whether or not it will be militarized, but answering but entering records into the Committee Evidence showing they have grenade launchers. They have rocket launchers, they are taking out helicopters. The border is militarized. The question is whether or not our folks, the americans who would protect and preserve our country are going to be put at a disadvantage when protecting us as a consequence of this congress. Hours upon hours my democratic colleagues have said how dare you to the republicans who would inject issues that dont have anything to do with the death of mr. Floyd. Nobody in Border Patrol killed george floyd. Nobody in Border Patrol killed be on a taelor. Breonna taylor. I do know circumstance where they are involved in the type of offenses that the majority is articulating or attempting to solve. So it begs the question if this was about stopping police, local and state police from killing black americans, why have they woven into that legislation to disarm those who protect our border . Here is the reason. Because this isnt about black lives matter to them, this is about abolishing the elements of our society that preserve order. In our hearing with mr. Floyd and others, i show the evidence were Democrat Members of congress, even one democrat member of this committee were sharing content and raising money for an organization that stood not just for the abolition of the police, but the abolition of ice and prisons and the military and Border Patrol and the state itself. This isats really what all about, eroding the state, our borders, just say it. But spare us the lectures about how this is all about george floyd. Nobody in Border Patrol her george floyd. I yield to mr. Buck. I think my friend from florida. Why would they be opposed to this amendment . They would be opposed because they want to see the traffickers of young girls coming across the border. They would be in favor opposed to this because they want to see those who are bringing poisons across our border win. Thats why they would want to be opposed to this. Border patrol isnt enforcing laws in the interior of this country. They arent detaining people with chokeholds in chicago and other areas, they are trying to protect our border and protect our citizens from the dangers that are coming across that border. And the only reason you would want to defeat this amendment is to see some very terrible things happen. Thats my answer to your question. I yield to the gentleman from ohio. I yield back, thank you. General many yields back. The gentlelady from florida is recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. Coming from a colleague from florida, let me just say how offensive it is to continue to hear the comments coming from my republican colleagues from the they dontbecause talk about the border with canada, they dont talk about ports of entry, we all want law and order but what we want is for those people that are responsible for enforcing the law to also follow the law. Military vehicles, you know what that reminds me of when i see military vehicles . The streets in venezuela. Violence inleeing Central America and latin america. Human trafficking, kids are being trafficked . You are responsible for being complacent detaining almost 3000 kids in my district, separating them from my fair from families of the border. Hypocrisyspare me the of wanting to have security separating families keeping kids detained. We are talking about Police Brutality, talking about militarizing our police we know what happened last week in the protest in washington, d. C. That happens in latin america, not the United States of america. Lets get back to the real issue, violence against black and brown people. Latinos, hispanic, they are not all part of the drug cartel. They are not all criminals the way you always view every opportunity to do that. So please spare me your hypocrisy and mr. Gates, if you want to be acting, go to hollywood. We need to be legislating here. Point of order here. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from ohio. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thet of all im not sure chair addressed the points of order several members on this yield to theo i gentleman from arizona to make his point of order since the chairman wont recognize the them recommend them on the chairs time. Thank you. What we just heard, a personal attack on someone is out of order and contrary to the decorum of this committee and i would ask you to rule out of order. Point of order. Toand challenge and yield the gentleman for his point. The gentleman has not stated the point of order, members should address the chair. The gentleman from rhode island. Parliamentary inquiry. To be just hear my good friend mr. Buck actually say that the democrats on this committee were attempting to facilitate child traffickers . Claims that was just made about the motives of democrats was beyond it was breathtaking, it wasnt even worthy of responding to now in the face of that they have the audacity to claim that someones word should be taken down . That is not a popper proper parliamentary inquiry. All member should address the chair. The judgment from ohio. Id like to yield to the judgment from colorado. Id want to tell my friend from rhode island that i was answering a hypothetical question from mr. Gates. The hypothetical was why would ourcrats want to oppose Border Patrol having the ability your interrupting and i am not giving you time. The democrats want to oppose having Border Patrol at least at equal strength to the militarized cartels that are coming across. I could not possibly come up with a reason for that, but if i had to dig really deep, it would be something as absurd as wanting something to happen that absolute should never happen. I yield back to my friend from ohio. The gentling from ohio. I think the jennifer yielding. Thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentlelady from florida attacked his motives. He is not acting. He is fighting for principles he cares about and believes in. We are debating important issues. Then to insinuate something about his motive, that is exactly what youre not supposed to do. Talk about someones motive for what they are saying but that is exactly which were not supposed to do, ive heard about the rules of decorum, that is certainly one of them. That is why the gentleman from arizona raised a point. Representative i would note the gentleman made the trip. Representative my desire to protect this country, to protect what is special about it, to ensure order patrol agents dont die when they do duty to our country, is no act. The act is the effort to weave in the radical left desire to have no borders into a policing hearing. If this is about policing and black lives matter, why are you trying to hurt ice and Border Patrol . Because the democrats of the act have the act in this committee. So there is no trip to hollywood. But i invite every democrat on the committee to join congressman biggs, and perhaps you would be able to see how hard this fight is against an enemy that is resourced with billions of dollars, that is launching hand grenades at the people who seek to protect our families and communities. If you want to know why we are not concerned out the Canadian Border, no one is throwing grenades over the Canadian Border at our country. And you realize your bill hurts the Canadian Border. My amendment preserves the protection for the whole country, because i love the whole country. It is worthy of protection. I honor the people who fight on our border against those who do us harm. Everybody watching at home knows what is really going on after all this they havent taken a single republican amendment, even stuff they agree with, and now they have jumped the shark on policing. This is no longer about policing. It is precisely about what the black visions Minnesota Group intended to accomplish, defund the police, defund Border Patrol, eliminate orders, get borders altogether, get rid of the military and get rid of the United States. It is what you are raising money for, mr. Chairman. I showed at the last Committee Hearing where a member of this committee, democratic caucus, raising money for an organization that wants to destroy the United States. There they want to dismantle the states. How dare any of you question our motives when we are trying to preserve what is special about this country while working with you about stuff you care about. We want to get rid developments we want to get rid of the elements of policing that harm people. We want more training. The president has taken leadership on chokeholds. I voted with you on noknock warrants. But thats not enough for you. You would rather smear our families and smear our motives that legislate more americans will die and that blood will be on your hands. You you and you chair nadler the gentleman is i write recognized. Representative move to strike you know the last word. Money every i rise in opposition to this amendment. This committee appropriates money every year for ice and Border Patrol, for their weapons, whatever their needs are, this congress appropriates. For whatever their needs are, this congress appropriate their needs. Ice and the Border Patrol do not need to rely on the government 1033 surplus military Equipment Program in order to do their jobs. If we had to rely on the 1033 program for our Law Enforcement, we would be in bad shape. We have never done it. We dont do it. We want to do it. The thing about the 1033 program that needs to be shut down is the fact it allows these Law Enforcement agencies to petition directly to the department of defense to get what ever militarygreat weapons they want. Whatever military grade weapons they want. No civilian authority involved whatsoever. That means the park service, for instance, the u. S. Park service is a Police Agency of the federal government. Should the head of the parks police decide that they want an armed drone to do their work inside our borders . No, we should not allow for that to be a possibility. But with this 1033 program, it is a possibility and is something we need to close up. We dont need the postal Service Police to be militarizing. For what purpose . If we authorize it and appropriate funding for it, fine. But dont bypass the civilian authority. Dont allow the Police Agencies to militarize and become a military unit within our borders, and the civilian authority has nothing to do with it . That is reckless and irresponsible for us to have this loophole in our law that is as big as a tank that can be driven through it right to the streets by the park police, the u. S. Park police, by the u. S. Postal inspection, even by u. S. Probation and pretrial services. We dont want this to be the case in america, so we need to close this loophole, not just for local and state Law Enforcement, but also for federal Law Enforcement agencies. If it is a federal Law Enforcement agency that needs equipment, then it is our job in congress, in this house of representatives and in the senate, to authorize and appropriate whatever they need. We are the ones that determine whether the equipment is necessary, whether it is proper, not the agency itself. And undercurrent law, the agency makes all the decisions. I dont think we want that to be the case in america with our Police Agencies able to bulk up and become militarized without our consent. That is undemocratic. It is a threat to our liberty. I yield back. Representative mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word. Chair nadler recognized. Representative mr. Biggs has been trying to get one. Chair nadler i was not aware of anyone seeking recognition. Miss escobar has started. Representative we will let mr. Biggs go first. I will go after him. Chair nadler for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . To strike the last word. Presented of the gentleman is representative just last week, i took a number of congressmen to the border. I grew up in southern arizona. It is a wide open space. We went to a ranch down on the new mexicoarizona border. It is where rob prince was killed 10 years ago by somebody who was here illegally, that mr. Prince was trying to give food and water to. This amendment solves is the provisioning of the Border Patrol with the equipment to fight a superior armed force. The ranch is in a highlytrafficked corridor of human and drug smuggling, no fences there. Do you know how long it takes to get there by car . Two and hours. Do you know how vast that area is . It is big and expansive and the number of agents that patrol the area is few. It takes 45 minutes to get the helicopter there. By the time you get there, smugglers are 45 minutes gone up into the mountains. You need this equipment. A couple of trips ago, we got into blackhawks and toured the section of the border, and as we went over the mountains, rugged, sharp mountains, the pilot said, right here is where we rescued a woman eight months pregnant. They had to lower agents down from the black hawk, pick her up, bring her up and transport her to tucson. The violence along the border, which we try and which the cartels dont want to spill in because they know it would raise public awareness, was manifested earlier this year. Two small ports of entry, 18 miles apart, we are building fence between them now, i was there last week, but between douglas and nacco, there was a dispute from remnants of a cartel, and they were killing each other off, posting heads on fences, so they could control the plaza, the entryway, the gateway into the country, and everyone coming in, individuals, commercial vehicles, they are all paying a price to come across. You may not think that is important, but if you live along the border, you saw what was going on. And this flows across our borders. 40 of all drugs that come through arizona come through the tucson sector, into the country. They come through the tucson sector. There are scouts in the mountains. A lot of people dont think arizona has mountains. We have got mountains 12,000 feet high, filled with scouts so they can track our Border Patrol agents, load up humans and rolled them to san diego, roll them to phoenix. We went to the dea office, a room filled with drugs, opioids they had recently taken, thousands of fentanyl pills, 50 caliber machine gun, they had a table of highlyqualified arsenal to be used against our Border Patrol. And you dont want to give them necessary equipment . Im shocked by that. It is astonishing. Mr. Gaetzs amendment is a positive amendment. It will help secure our border. We have crime coming through. With that i support his , amendment. I yield back. Chair nadler for what purpose does the gentle lady texas seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to state for the record and does a reminder to my colleagues, im the only member of this committee who lives on the u. S. Mexico border. In fact, im a thirdgeneration woman who lives on the u. S. Mexico border. Representative jayapal, first it was seattle, now it is the southern border, classic tactics intended not just to distract us from the purpose of this hearing, which is Police Brutality and systemic racism we are trying to address. But they are also, as i mentioned, i responded to the comments about seattle, it is a crisis in your community in seattle and against people on the southern border. I am embarrassed that we even have to go down this route for the last 15 minutes, instead of talking about Police Brutality we had to hear stories about how dangerous the u. S. Mexico border is, about how unsafe it is, about how we need to continue pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into communities like mine that have been safe for generations. It is really a tragedy and a shame that we dont have colleagues who will rise to the occasion, but they will clutch their pearls because one of their colleagues was called an actor. Meanwhile, we are accused of child trafficking, of supporting drug cartels. I dont even believe they understand the irony of what is happening here. Here we are, wanting to finally take racism and bigotry had on, headon and what did they do . They use amendments that fuel that same racism and bigotry. Because with all their talk about how dangerous communities like mine are, what does that do . It makes us the enemy. That is what makes it easy for them to put children in cages. That is what makes it easy for them to paint moms with babies arriving at our front door as some type of National Security threat. It is what allows them to continue to dehumanize immigrants, because it feeds the narrative that gets them votes. So while they are feeding that narrative, what they are doing is feeding the racism and bigotry that is used against us. And no community on the border knows about her than my own. Knows it better than my own. There is one thing that mr. Gaetz said that i agree with and that is yes, the border is militarized. My side of the border is militarized. The u. S. Side of the border is militarized. Hundreds of billions of dollars on walls, on quadrupling, more than quadrupling the number of personnel, on all sorts of military equipment that is already here in my Community Every single day. I think it is about time that america wakes up, not just the racism that is so systemic in Law Enforcement against black and Brown Brothers and sisters, but i think we need to own up to the immigrant bashing and the way we demonize vulnerable communities, all to get a little snippet of time on fox news, or to raise some money, or to get some votes. Enough. Lets focus on the task at hand. Lets work on this bill. Enough of these distractions, which are dangerous. As someone who has been on the receiving end of a number of threats because i dare to stand up for my constituents and immigrants, and call things as i see them, this is a dangerous road we are going down and i object to this amendment. I yield back. Chair nadler for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition . To strike the last word. The member from texas just accused us of raising money, called us all kinds of names, and suggested our amendment isnt relevant. We didnt write the bill, you guys did. We wanted to put some amendments in the bill, you wouldnt give us any. We give you 11 amendments today that are good, you wouldnt take any of them. You wrote it, you put in the military sales come all the amendment says is, lets that the good guys have what it takes to find the dust to fight the bad guys on our border. We know the violence that takes place there. That is all this amendment is about. Mr. Chairman, we cant have members to continue to question the motives of our members offering amendments to sections of the bill that you wrote, totally relevant, totally germane. I yield. Representative the real question is, are democrats willing to let good provisions in this legislation died because you are so motivated to disarm our Border Patrol . Are you really going to let our communities not get the benefit of the good ideas representative congresswoman bass and chairman nadler have had because you want to fight about the Border Patrol . Tthe lady from texas said we are targeting vulnerable communities, cartels are not communities. They are traffickers, bringing drugs and human traffic into our country. They are well armed assassins. We dont seek to target immigrants. Who are the immigrants that are helped when we disarm ice . No one in ice is using armored patrol to hurt immigrants, they are using it to fight cartels. And cartels are not vulnerable, they are wellequipped, and you would disarm the americans who are brave enough to fight them. It seems like a silly hill to die on. We are in divided government, a republican senate, a republican president , so i want to fix these policing reforms and it appears the party bringing the superfluous, irrelevant information to this debate aint us. We are trying to take superfluous things out. You guys take a driveby shot at Border Patrol and we are going to stand up for them. I yield to the gentleman from georgia. Representative i am glad everybody is engaged, but did you notice crickets when we talked about collective bargaining and the things that get two officers who do bed things, and which we have seen time and time again which collective bargaining agreements hide, and it takes officers who did bad things and gets them back on the force . And then crickets. So lets actually talk about what really matters in a field that is trying to make transformational change. I yield back. Representative it is head spinning that my colleague from texas would say that we are advancing this amendment or money in donations. I dont think there is any member, republican or democrat, taking donations from cartels. My amendment hurts cartels. Your opposition to it helps cartels. If there is big money from cartels, i would love for you to tell us who they are, that is absurd but it might just be projecting. Because as my colleagues claim this great interest interest in solving bad policing, we see where that interest leads. It goes all the way to where you look your own donors in the eye and have a tough conversation with the unions. Black lives dont matter to you as much as unions do. Thats what you proved and now you are not just standing up for unions, you are standing up for cartels, calling them vulnerable communities that shouldnt have the full force of the u. S. Government against them. The gentleman from georgia said we should fund them with government tax dollars. If we can save money and get at better efficiency, if that means one more order patrol agent its to go home to their family, there is one more piece of body armor for folks, that Congress Members may represent, we are with them all the way. You are taking a shot that Border Patrol as you are trying to solve local policing, and everyone in america knows you are terrified of the squad into giving up the agenda did them. Chair nadler time has expired. The question occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment will say aye. Opposed say no. The noes have it. A recorded vote is requested in the clerk will call the roll. Miss jackson lee votes no. Mr. Johnson of georgia . Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Deutch . Mr. Deutch votes no. Miss bass . Miss bass votes no. Mr. Jeffries votes no. Mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Swalwell votes no. Mr. Lieu votes no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Ms. Jayuapal votes no. Ms. Demings votes no. Mr. Correa votes no. Miss scanlon votes no. Miss garcia votes no. Miss mcbeth votes no. Mr. Stanton votes no. Miss dean votes no. Ms. Powell votes no. Miss escobar . Miss escobar votes no. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Chabot votes aye. Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Buck votes aye. Miss roby votes aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Biggs votes aye. Have all the Committee Members voted . There are 14 ayes and 21 nos. The agreement is not agreed to. The gentleman is recognized. Point of order is reserved. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This amendment is actually very simple. I have heard a number of times the present trends executive order has been categorized as weak but i dont think thats really the case. Has taken some Bold Initiative and action. Much of what this bill does seems to be encroaching on state and local jurisdictions and in a directly, provides some basis for nationalizing our state and local police forces. That is problematic to me. Simpleendment which is is getting at where he think we cannot discount that we have jurisdiction and thats what the federal agencies, Police Agencies and we are talking ,bout specific training specifically deescalation and tactics and techniques that need to be cured. I think thats one weve all talked about today repeatedly is that there needs to be more and better deep training, deescalation tactics, deescalation techniques and it seems the first place we would go and look would be right in our own house, in our own federal Police Agencies and thats why im bringing this amendment and i would love but dont expect universal support. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I recognize myself. This amendment would eliminate the entire bill. This amendment substitutes three sentences. For all the reasons we have given to meet the challenges of the time, presented by systemic brutality, all the things we have talked about all day to take this amendment and eliminate the entire bill is to deny the problems of systemic racism, deny the problems of police rotelle and deny the movement in this country to solve these problems. This amendment is absurd in the extreme when i urge its rejection. I yield back. Point of order is withdrawn. Point of order. The gentleman will state his point of order. You have already ruled its ok to say amendments are ridiculous nonsense. Is it appropriate for the chair to say that amendments are absurd to the extreme . That is not a point of order, it is appropriate. Ok. Who seeks recognition . The gentlelady from texas. I exercise my right to Reserve Point of order. I am stunned by the language of this amendment so much so that its difficult to respond. The idea of this legislation is a new day in policing in america that will ensure the safety and security of the American People to boost in a positive way Police Community relationships. We have moved away from establishing relationships and ensure that civilians who govern this nation can go home safely to their families as well as Law Enforcement and as my colleagues have said, the systemic racism and bias found in policing can be rejected. Let me submit these numbers into the record. Let me read these numbers into the record. The aclu did a recent study in the district of columbia. 89 of the stops in the district of columbia are black people. 91 of the pat downs and the district of columbia are black people. White people are 36 of the population. They are only 14 of the stops. Those under 18, 80 8 of the stops are recent numbers 88 of the stops are recent numbers. One of the questions is the new way of policing. The section we are working on is lawenforcement, trust and integrity. It goes through all of the elements that can professionalize the 18,000 Police Departments. It speaks about the definition of excessive force. It speaks to the question of the responsibility to intervene. It speaks very broadly and expansively to the question of deescalation. That can save many lives. Michael brown could have benefited from that officer who was never found responsible for that act. To deescalate. Michael was in his neighborhood. Michael was not a murderer. He was not a threat to the community. He was within minutes of his home. All that officer had to do was deescalate rather than pull his weapon. Shooting Michael Brown in the streets of ferguson. Trayvon martin, although not police per se but acting as a civilian patrol, all mr. Zimmerman had to do was go home. He did not have to stigma, provide a stigma of a young black man with skittles and iced tea. All the officers had to do was to deescalate and determine whether or not this was a 12yearold child with a bb gun. All the police in atlanta had to do was deescalate, give him on a man that had passed the test of being sober and not inebriated give him some coffee , and let him welcome to be with his family. All the officers had to do in minneapolis was have a heart it and to take the cancer of racism from their soul that would allow them to smother, to suffocate, to strangle a black man on the seats of america. On the streets of america. That is what is in the lawenforcement trust and integrity act, including the ability to have a civilian review commission or board. It is an extended part of it. It really focused singlehandedly on changing that relationship and providing the protocols and roadmaps for accrediting 18,000 Police Departments. Lets visit 18,000 Police Departments, one Police Officer, no standardized education. No standardized aid. No standardized training. As evidenced by the volunteer deputy in arizona. That killed a black man. He was a volunteer deputy. Paid to be able to volunteer with a gun. And kill a black man on the streets. This amendment does not do well to continue the policies of this bill that are so needed. We are asking for justice, i opposed the amendment. I yield back. The gentlelady yields back. The question occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment say i. Opposed, no. The nose have it. The nos have it. The recorded vote is requested and you will call the roll. Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Lofgren votes no. Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Deutch . Mr. Deutch votes no. Mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Jeffrey . Mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Swallow votes no. Mr. Lou votes no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Miss jayapal votes no. Ms. Demings votes no. Mr. Correa votes no. Ms. Scanlan votes no. Ms. Garcia votes no. Ms. Mcbeth votes no. Mr. Goose vote mr. Not goose naguse votes now. Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Dean votes no. Miss Macarthur Powell votes no. Ms. Escobar votes no. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Shabbat votes aye. Ms. Ruby votes no. Mr. Gates votes aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock votes i. Aye. Lesko votes mr. Armstrong . Mr. Steube . Mr. Cline . Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Armstrong . Mr. Armstrong votes no. [applause] [no audio] mr. Johnson . Mr. Johnson votes no. [no audio] ms. Bass . Ms. Bass votes no. Anybody else . Mr. Cohen votes no. The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are nine ayes and 26 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments . Purpose does the gentlelady from arizona seek recognition . And amendment at the desk. The clerk will record the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman, the amendment at the desk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 7120. Offered by ms. Lesko of arizona. I reserve a point of order. The gentlelady reserves a point of order. My amendment sibley takes away cost Grant Funding for states or units of local government that the fund, disband or dismantle their Law Enforcement agencies. The Community Oriented policing Services Office is the department within the Justice Department responsible for advancing the practice of Community Policing by state local, territorial and tribal Law Enforcement. This Department Awards grants to hire Community Policing. Professionals, develop and test innovative policing strategies and provide training and Technical Assistance to community members, local government leaders in all levels of Law Enforcement. Since 1994, they have invested more than 14 billion to help advance Community Policing. How can we disagree on the fact that if a locality votes to defund, dismantle or disband the police that they should not receive Grant Funding and tested intended for Law Enforcement . I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. To me this is common sense policy. And i yield the balance of my time. Two mr. Johnson from louisiana. I thank the gentlelady from arizona. I made a point of order earlier in these proceedings, we need clarification on this important matter going forward. Let me state again what that was. Under the new house rules, numbers participated remotely in a committee proceeding must continue to use the Software Video function. We checked to see with the parliamentarian, they say that if the member is in the software platform, they must keep the video on. This might sound trivial but we know that exactly one half of the democrats on this committee, i think 12 of attend remotely 24 today. All of the republicans attended. Except mr. Sensenbrenner who was morning was mourning the loss of his wife. The chair is not allowed to unilaterally decide what the rules are. I think we are all operating under that assumption. I would ask you, the chairman to respond to this. Is he correct or is the parliamentarian correct . [no audio] the members recognize this for the purpose of the bid only. Of debate only. Then i make a point of order. The gentleman will state his point of order. Let me repeat we need clarification on this very important matter going forward. Members are violating the rules because the videos have not been consistent. I dont mean this personally against anyone who attended. It is important to understand what the rules are. We have been instructed Different Things by our subcommittee chairs. I know we have. I think we need clarification. If your decision on this is different than the parliamentarian, i want that noted for the record. The point of order is not well taken. The member is present under the house rules when he is visible. On the screen. Record, that differs from the parliamentarian on the rule as it is written. The gentleman is not recognized. Who seeks recognition . The gentleman from rhode island seeks recognition. One last word. Would ask ms. Lesko if she would yield for a question. In the amendment, it says estate a state unit that defines, disband or dismantles, i take it there is no definition of what those terms mean. It is for someone who illuminates the police it is intended for someone who eliminates the Police Department. I am struggling to see how any such state or unit could apply. I have never heard of anyone try to limit an entire Police Department but it seems that by definition, that is what you need. That is what you mean. You could not apply for a cops grant because you would not have a Police Department. That is the point of this. There have been calls to not only defund but to dismantle. I have applied for cops grants as a mayor. You have to certify that its used to hire Police Officer so this amendment makes no sense. It is another attempt to distract from this very Serious Police reform to hold Police Officers accountable. This is to attack the institutional racism in this country. That way it not only works for the citizens of this country but it works for Police Officers and protects and honors the good Police Officers by holding those accountable who violate that trust. This is another attempt to raise the issue of eliminating Police Departments. Kind of a strawman that this bill does not suggest in any way but lets cut this short. Do you recognize the question . The gentleman from ohio. Thank you. Read the amendment. State or unit that d funds or and or. Es, not we have examples of all three. Three of our largest cities in this country, the mayor of new york said he would cut the Police Department 1 billion. They just got rid of 600 plainclothes units two days ago. The mayor of l. A. Said he would cut the Police Department 250 million. Those are our two largest cities. Minneapolis, a super majority of the city council says they want to dismantle. We have all three, new york has defunded, it wants to defund. They have disbanded the plainclothes units. L. A. Wants to defund and minneapolis wants to dismantle. Thats why the amendment is written the way it is. Its plain as can be. You can make whatever argument you want but read the amendment. That is what this is about. I would urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back. Who seeks recognition . The gentleman from california. The general and from point of order . The question was called. No, it was not. The gentle man from california is recognized. Thank you. The gentleman from california is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Again this hearing is about , banning chokehold, requiring body cameras, getting rid of racial profiling, having National Misconduct registry of officers, reducing the standard to make civil rights prosecution. We see this obsession on defunding the police. I would just add that the only defunding of the police that has been on record in this house of representatives and the last couple of months or the individuals of this body who have voted against the heroes act. The states are telling us republican and democratic governors are saying that we have shortfalls because of this pandemic. The first people who will be fired in the shortfalls are Police Officers, firefighters, nurses. The people who have taken care of us during this pandemic. We passed a trillion dollars in aid for republican and democratic states. Republicans all voted against it. Except for those are the people one. Who are seeking on the record to defund the police. This effort is to reform the police, police the police. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the amendment. Moved to strike last word. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . I move to strike last word. The gentleman is recognized. I want to thank the gentlelady for offering this amendment. I think the democrats in this committee are determined not to take up even common sense, reasonable, complete we responsible, should be bipartisan amendments. She is basically saying that if you dismantle the boys the Police Department, you should not get a cops grant. That should be pretty darn logical. Apparently in seattle, i think we all keep picking on seattle but they are the one entity that has allowed anarchists to take over a portion of the city. That includes the Police Department. I guess we want to make clear that the poetry readers out there dont get the grant. They have not had any kind of indication about who will take over once they get bit of a Police Department. Once they get rid of the Police Department. I think the gentlelady from arizona for making sure that this money does not go to those poetry readers. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed . The nos have it. I call for a roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Lofgren votes no. Miss jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutch votes no. Miss bass . Mr. Richman votes no. Mr. Jeffries . Mr. Cicilline votes no. Wobble mr. Sauve l. Mr. Lou votes no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Miss demmings votes no. Mr. Korea votes no. Mr. Caray votes no. Ms. Scanlan votes no. Ms. Garcia . Ms. Garcia votes no. Mr. Magoos votes no. Mr. Naguse votes no. Mr. Stanton votes no. Miss dean votes no. Ms. Escobar votes no. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Shabbat votes aye. Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Buck votes aye. Miss ruby votes no. Mr. Gates votes aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Big votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Ms. Lesko . Ms. Lesko votes i. Mr. Klein . He votes aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Steube votes yes. Has everyone voted who wishes to vote . Ms. Bass votes no. The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 24 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. The question that occurs this will be filed immediately by vote and on final passage of the bill. All those in favor respond by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and its agreed to. They reporting quorum being present the question is on the , motion to report the bill hr 7120 as amended favorably to the house. Those in favor respond by saying aye. Those opposed . No. The ayes have it, the bill is reported favorably. The recorded vote has been requested. The clerk were call the roll. Mr. Nadler . Aye. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. Miss jackson lee votes aye. Mr. Cohen votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes aye. Mr. Deutch votes aye. Ms. Bass votes aye. Mr. Richmond votes aye. Mr. Jeffries, mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Swalwell votes aye. Mr. Lou votes aye. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Miss jayapal votes aye. Miss demings votes aye. Correa votes aye. Ms. Scanlan votes aye. Ms. Garcia votes aye. Mr. Negus votes aye. Mr. Stanton votes aye. Ms. Kane votes aye. Ms. Powell votes aye. Ms. Escobar votes aye. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Sensenbrenner mr. Shabbat , votes no. , mr. Collins votes now. Mr. Buck votes no. Ms. Robie votes no. Mr. Gates votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes no. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcclintock votes no. Miss lesko votes no. Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Armstrong votes no. Mr. Steube votes no. Mr. Jeffries votes aye. Has everyone voted who wishes to . Mr. Chairman . So missrded jack jackson lee, you are recorded as aye. Mr. Richmond. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the hearing record the testimony from dr. Frederick west, africanamerican. Health alliance. Without objection . Mr. Jeffries . The clerk will report. There are 24 ayes and 14 nos. The ayes have it and the bill is amended. [applause] the members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment. Staff is authorized to make conforming changes. This concludes our business for today. Thanks to all the members for attending. Without objection the markup is , adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the House Judiciary Committee spent wednesday debating the justice in policing act. The legislation deals with Police Reform in the wake of the death of george floyd who died in police custody. Members voted the bill out of committee 2414 and it now heads to the house for next week. The president from public affairs, available now in paperback and ebook. It presents biographies of every president organized by the ranking by noted historians from best to worst. And features perspectives into the lives of our nations chief executive and leadership styles. Visit our website www. Cspan. Org morepresident s to learn and order your copy today or wherever books or ebooks are sold