Transcripts For CSPAN House Judiciary Committee Debates Justice In Policing Act - Part 2 20240712

Thank you, mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. And the nature of a substitute to hr 71 120, at the end of the bill the following, recorded. I have an instruction to the amendment. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, over the past few weeks we have seen thousands of americans exercise the right to peacefully protest. I applaud these individuals for spurring the important debate we are having today about police conduct. However, we are also seeing rioting, looting, and violence. This destructive and frankly despicable behavior led to the murder and maiming of Law Enforcement officers, including David Patrick underwood and david dorn. And these destructions and the destruction of cities and the destruction of my owned businesses. Violence is not protected by the first amendment. Those participating in such reprehensible actions should face the full force and extent of the law. One such group inciting violence in our communities is that of leftist extremist Political Movement antifa. Antifa has engaged in violent and threatening acts against american citizens, Law Enforcement officers, elected officials, and even our military Service Members. To shareman, im going just a few incidents of their violence and their threatening behaviors. 2017, the day after president trumps inauguration, Six Police Officers were injured and over 200 violent leftwing protesters were arrested on vandalism and assault charges. The protesters smashed storefront windows. They smashed bus stops. They hammered out windows of cars. They launched the rocks at the police. 2018, antifa, activists threatened to vandalize fox news commentator tucker carlsens residence. This while his wife was in the house. 2019, a leader of antifa from washington, d. C. Was arrested and charged in oonnection with assaulting tw u. S. Service members in philadelphia. , three 2020 pop were accused of inciting riots and looting in a target in austin texas. There are additional examples, and theres additional accounts. I have included some in the text of my amendment. I think everybody here gets the idea. No mistaking antifa is involved in the recent violence we have seen following the murder of george floyd. Attorney general bill barr has even noted the deal g has evidence that antifa and other similar extremist groups, as well as actors of a variety of different political persuasions, have been involved in instigating and participating in violent activity. Groups who spew hatred, who engage in violence and intimidation, we cannot let these groups control our communities through fear and Important National dialogue. My amendment would require the fbi to study antifas tactics and operations, as well as whether antifa should be labeled labeled a Domestic Terrorist Organization. Awould also require report to be provided to congress on antifas terrorist activities. I think this is just common sense. I think this is just being proamerican. If you support peaceful protesters, if you want to ensure violence is not drowned out their voices, you should vote for my amendment. If you support Small Business owners, those Small Business owners whose lives and livelihood has been destroyed by looters, you should vote for my amendment. Colleaguearks, my we memphis, tennessee said are all against the riots. If you believe that violence, rioting, and looting is wrong, you should vote for my amendment. If you believe it did not reflect the values of america, you should vote for my amendment. Comely hope we can together to protect our communities and speak with one voice against hatred and violence. I yield the balance of my time. Recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The amendment is aaron nonsense. There have been no arrests whatsoever in the u. S. Is it appropriate for a chair to be calling amendment nonsense . Yes. I bic to differ with the gentleman. The amendment is aaron nonsense. Arrest inbeen not one antifa, of anyone from or of antifa, with respect to any crimes or accusations whatsoever. Amendment, is beating a nonsensical dead horse. I yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from texas. It deals with the transformational effort and reimagining of the Nations Police departments. We emphasize and to sympathize with our officers, many who work every day to protect us, and we thank them. No one in this committee has ever taken to charge any officer of goodwill and good work of not doing their job. Americans onith believing in law and order. We also believe in truth. I cannot understand how this relates to the eloquent plea of the floyd family asking for justice. Tears in their eyes. I dont see how this comports with the eight minutes and 46 seconds when an officer of the serve,orn to protect and officer of the law sworn to intervene, a lot of men to die on the streets of america. This particular amendment doesnt have any relation to that. As my chairman has indicated, this is factfinding, and we need to find the facts. Surly 30. Ze to be it should also tell us what role uber has been playing in the devices and acts against Law Enforcement. We understand an arrest was made of someone affiliated that is alleged to have killed a sheriff and Law Enforcement officer on the front steps of an oakland california. I dont hear any amendments on that issue. That means this amendment fails because of its incompleteness, but also because of the issue we are addressing is trying to assume the American People are with us today. They are with us today because they want a nation of law and democracy. Good friend from maryland indicated what we were founded on. That is the numerous bill of rights that gives to the civilian population its right to oversee the government. Today, that is what we are attempting to do, legislation that gives justice to all of those names we have encountered over and over again. Shot almostwho was 20 times in the back. Whoyoung man in atlanta could have gotten the cup of coffee and been home with his daughter on saturday for a birthday party, and not seeing the pain of their family. Rice. Se who watched tamir the officer didnt know he was 12 years old. When i went to the street where Michael Brown was killed to see how narrow it was, how much deescalation, which is in this bill, would have saved his life. I think there is an unreadiness with this amendment. It is certainly incomplete. It certainly has inaccuracies. It doesnt count for right wing extremist groups killing individuals who happen to be people of color and threatening and attacking them, such as the perpetrator who killed those that mother emanuel. I believe the amendment is not one that i could support, because it may be and remain, but it is not relative to police. It is incomplete, it is bias, it directs us against a Group Without looking fairly and squarely at those who lift violence, raise up guns, and kill not only officers, but people of color. That doesnt answer the crime from the floyd family and all of the other families who have suffered, who are crying out for justice. Those families who lost their loved ones, they want justice and they want it now. I yield back. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman is recognized. I was listening to the gentlelady from texas. Suggesting the amendment was incomplete because it focuses on violent leftwing extremists and she would like it to focus on right wing extremists. I would suggest a conforming amendment. Im certain the gentleman from pennsylvania will be willing to accept the suggestions of the gentlelady. I would yield to the gentlelady. If we were to satisfy your concern so we can get to the root of the issue about leftwing and rightwing extremist groups that would use these protests to cause harm and chaos, would the gentlelady join us . If you are yielding, i will be brief. I would like the gentleman of florida for his graciousness. I believe it requires far more study and review. A friendly amendment without discerning whether or not the amendment on its face is accurate. I think it would be premature. I look forward to working with you on this question. These issues are extremely important to me. At this moment, it is not the amendment that is fully vetted. I would not be able to support it, even if amended. I think the gentlelady. Im hopeful we can work on that. Probably push back against the characterization that it is unrelated. I have listened carefully as my democrat colleagues have said if we move money away from police to homelessness or other issues, we can get to the root of some of the violence and concern that creates chaos on our streets. I would suggest when we look at whats happening in the chaz. In seattle, we have seen this antifa group cheerleading that effort. Gentlelady from Washington State we were mischaracterizing that, that it is really a place where there are Community Gardens. I looked up the Community Gardens, and they are racially segregated. I was raised and studied law school that separate was inherently unequal. Where have reporting antifa is cheering on violence. This is reporting from Channel Seven news. An auto shop was in this particular area. It got no response to dozens of 911 calls. This is what the owner said. He said our lives are on the line. The mayor and governor need their act together. It is beyond a protest. We heard the gentlelady say the her commentsce, were taken out of context. Can only take her at her actual words were she said rapes, robberies, and violent acts have been occurring in the area. It doesnt seem like it would be taken out of context. There is reporting from pj media. Speakershaz reputation putting up cash for black people. Withineo was a demand the zone that everyone who was white gives someone who is black 10. I have never seen that happen at a Community Garden in my district. Theres also a report from the daily caller. I have been scared every day. Seattle resident speaks about life behind the border. There is a discussion about the lack of sleep, the screaming, the gunshots. And the terror in the community. Im from north florida. We dont really have a lot of gunshot or racial segregation, or demands for racially based payments. That as we come together, to condemn violence against people who should not die and just as we have all come together to condemn rights. I think we would come together and say it is not something we want to see visited on the streets in our district. We have heard today that two people in this group have been arrested for killing Law Enforcement officers. One, whos sister was brought appeared to make it look like it was the rioters. Would you agree that should be the major group we should look at right now . A group who want to incite and kill Police People . I would suggest we dont have to make that choice. I was persuaded by some of those comments. Equally persuaded that what we see going on in seattle is not the behavior we should tolerate. I have a cnn article that says they are not a white supremacist group. They have mixed ideologies and identify with all sorts of stuff. The gentlemans time has expired. The gentlelady for florida seeks recognition. Thank you so much. I also want to thank the chairwoman for her leadership. My condolences to my colleagues who have lost their loved ones. I was in opposition to this amendment. It is interesting listening to my colleagues about looting and rioting, rightwing wing, leftwing extremists. And Law Enforcement. I would ask if my colleagues really know it all, who Law Enforcement is, what it means. What Law Enforcement takes an oath to do. Who the good men and women who do the job well, who they really are. Lawou really understand enforcement officers are held to a higher standard, as they should be . As i was when i was among the ranks . Better, we are supposed to do better. I served as career Law Enforcement officer. I loved the job, because i went to work every day trying to make a difference. But i do notb, love bad cops. We have my colleagues an opportunity right now, here today, to take our rightful place in history and pass this law that will hold bad cops accountable. I ask you who among us would not want to do that . I had one of my colleagues say this is hard. No its not. We need to stop saying doing the right thing is hard to do. It is not hard. Not if we have the political will and the courage to take our place in history and right the wrongs in our system of justice. Brutalyds murder was and senseless. Person ingod every our nation, every member of congress, every Law Enforcement officer committed to doing the job right, and persons around the world believe that. Us inat everybody joins holding them accountable. Who among us would not want to prevent Something Like that from happening . I have also heard a lot of discussion about all lives matter versus black lives matter. Important. Mely as i thought about that phrase all lives matter and black lives ofter, i think the founder the movement said it best when she said all lives will matter. When black lives matter. Untilves cannot matter black lives matter. I beg, i appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, lets get this right. Every good Law Enforcement officer needs us to do that. The families who have suffered at the hands of bad Law Enforcement need us. Frankly, for the future to do that. Down in opposition of this amendment. For that, i yield back. Purpose does the gentleman of ohio seek recognition . To support the gentlemans amendment. The amendmentaid one fromnse and no antifa had been charged or arrested, which is not true. All you can do is look at the amendment. He gives perfect examples. On november 17, and antifa member was arrested after attacking conservative demonstrators in portland, oregon. The leader 2019, from washington, d. C. Was arrested and charged with assaulting United States Service Members in philadelphia. June 29, multiple antifa activists targeted a general in portland, oregon. Following that, he stated antifa regularly attacks journalists. We can go on. All the amendment says is lets figure this out. Lets find out about it and get the information back to the judiciary committee, representatives, and as my good friend from florida said, if there is other things we need to do on the floor, lets do it. Just like our first amendment. It makes so much sense. Yet they will vote against. I support the gentlemans amendment. It is clear, it gives the examples. It contradicts what the chairman said, that no antifa member has been arrested or charged. There are all kinds of examples. With that, i yield the remainder of my time. I think the ranking member. I heard my colleagues say the amendment is nonsense, irrelevant, there is no proof. There is ample proof. The attorney general himself, and i read the quote, he said there is evidence antifa and other similar extremist groups, as well as actors of a variety of political persuasions have been involved in instigating and participating in violent activity. Thats our attorney general. In my amendment, you will find multiple examples. 2019, a leader of antifa from washington, d. C. Was arrested in connection with u. S. Serviceo members in philadelphia. Would my colleagues across the aisle say thats nonsense, irrelevant, that there is now no proof . 29 june, 2019, a journalist who was reporting in portland, oregon was assaulted. He was targeted by antifa. ,e cap or himself that antifa regularly attacks journalists. It is reprehensible. For the journalist, is this nonsense . Is it irrelevant . Is it not proof . An armored 2019, antifa supporter attacked and hurled in city area devices at a nice facility in took home a, washington. Is that nonsense . Is that not proof . There is ample proof. I encourage my colleagues from across the aisle to vote for this amendment. We are trying to get support to congress to get more information. Why block this . It is simply an attempt to get back to congress so we can deal with what i believe is domestic Terrorists Organization that has already attacked Law Enforcement, u. S. Service members, and journalists. Yield to the ranking member, my colleague from ohio. The gentleman, i thank him for his statements. Unless the majority says the examples given by the gentleman, the examples i gave, required to the most recent that took place just last week. Arrested in members austin, texas for rioting and looting. There is a clear pattern. We want to report back to congress. As the gentleman from florida said, you want to add Something Else, we are fine with that. Lets get the information for the house judiciary committee. I yield back. Does theurpose gentleman from georgia serve to seek recognition . Thank you. I want to extend my heartfelt ,ondolences to my colleagues mr. Brenner and mr. Barr, for the loss of their dear wives. Extend my deepest condolences to the wife of Rayshard Brooks, who lost her husband this week. I hope you wont feel offended that i mention Rayshard Brooks wife as i mentioned our colleagues in congress. We are all equal. His wife and his three baby daughters, and his 13yearold stepson, will miss him. He was taken away from us on friday night. Offense ofitted the being caught in a drive through wheel ieep behind the dont know what kind of a day he had, but the police thought he was drinking. In, theled the Police Police who arrived at the scene and tapped on his window and told him to park in the parking space and sleep it off. He thought to himself as he was walking back to the car, what am i going to do with this guy . He made the decision to call in the dui task force. Abouti task force arrived 10 minutes later. Over the next 30 minutes, they administered one field sobriety test after another. Guess what . Each andbrooks passed every one of them. The stupid heel toe test, no one walks with one heel in front of the other. People lose their balance all the time who are not under the influence of anything. Because they have balance issues. Not mr. Rayshard brooks. Perfectly did that. Did all of the other things the officer wanted to do. Turn, shake your beauty with your eyes closed, all kinds of crazy tests they administered over the next 30 minutes. Earing on mr. Brooks patience. Messing with him on a friday night. Finally, the officer pulls his inherently unreliable field breath test and told him to blow into it. He blew into it. He did Everything Else they told him to do. He blew a. 10. They decided to do what they wanted to do at the very beginning, which is arrest this black man. He resisted, ran away, and got shot in the back twice. This is what we are here to talk about today. This is not about antifa. There is no such thing about antifa other than those who power rightwing, white militias, nationalist groups, people who oppose them in the streets are called antifa. This is nothing more than a figment of Donald Trumps imagination and those willing and complicit followers. We are not here to talk about antifa, we are not here to talk about violence, rioting, and looting, we are not here to talk about defunding the police. We are not here to talk about chaz in seattle. We are not here to talk about abortion. We are not here to talk about the impeachment hoax. We are not even here to talk about benghazi. Or Hillary Clintons emails. We will hear that before the day is over. We will hear the talk about the legislation that we justice and policing act we are considering. Thats what we are here to talk about. Needed as, mr. Brooks guardian the other night. He did not need a warrior. Instead, warriors showed up, took him down, took him out. His time out for warrior training and time out for warrior duty by cops who will use unnecessary and deadly force with a trigger finger, with a trigger mentality, roaming the streets of our cities, towns, and villages in this country. Floyds what the George Justice and policing act gets at. These commonsense measures. I would ask that we stop the nonsense and get down to the business at hand. That is to pass this legislation through this committee. With that, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. What purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition . Gentleman is recognized. I dont often agree with my colleague, mr. Johnson from georgia, but i want to acknowledge two things he said. Of course, the widow and children of Rayshard Brooks deserve our prayers and sympathy, like everybody else. You are also right to call it an impeachment hoax, but i will move on. I want to clarify what i was saying earlier. Theres a lot of talks about these groups. I think they are making a great point that we should expand our point. Mr. Jackson made a good point. On this movement, this is a lengthy article from cnn breaking down who these people are. I want to take a moment to redo these excerpts so were clear about who this group is. Incarnation of extremism that seems to defy easy categorization. They are no factor in the gone ongoing effort to puddle out the political sympathies of the agitators showing up to the mostly peaceful george floyd rallies. They have destroyed property, looted businesses, or in case of the boogaloos, walked around the streets with assault rifles. Boogaloo members appeared to hold conflicting biologic ideological views. Others rejecting formal titles. Benjamin deiters, apparently one of the leaders, does an interview with cnn and said he identifies as an anarchists mission in minneapolis was to protect protesters from police and White Supremacists whom he deplores. It goes on and says far from a cohesive group, this is quoting jj mcnabb, a fellow at George Washington university, he says while there are pockets of White Supremacists, boogaloos, while there are boogaloos support police, groups detest them. While there are boogaloos who want to discredit protests, there are younger boogaloos want to join the protests. They share a love of firearm and a desire to use violence to gain power, but they do not share a common goal once power is achieved. Again, i will quote this anarchist, a troublemaker, one of the leaders of this group, he recently attended a process test a protest against the covid19 lockdown. He said, quote, i am a member of the lgbt community. He said people think i am in a nazi group and i am not. This is very complicated and there are a lot of troublemaker groups. This is just the latest. Will you yield . I will yield. , i knowt want to say speaking about Racial Injustice and the brutal killing of george floyd is hard. It is hard to talk about, hard to watch, hard to experience. I just ask you to think about the families who represent those who have been victims of Police Violence who are watching this hearing and they are hearing listen. I know what your point is. You dont like what my point is . No, i dont like michaelng about antifa, flynn i dont like your point because you are politicizing this and we are not. Amendment that is germane and something we all ought to be concerned about. All the troublemaker groups why would you have a problem with that . I take offense and so do all of my colleagues when you pretend like we do not empathize with, care about, sympathize with these losses. We are on record saying it. Stop saying otherwise. For what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania secret should . Seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. I want to add my sympathies and prayers to the families of mr. Brenner for the passing of his wife and mr. Barr for the passing of his. And for Representative Ilhan Omar on the passing of her father from covid and so many others who are suffering during this time in our countrys history. We are considering this bill today because the world watched joyce george floyd and murdered by a Police Officer. Eight minutes and 46 seconds necka deranged knee to the as the man cried out, i cant breathe, and cried for his dead mama. Thats what we are here today about. I raise my voice in opposition to this amendment, which is not about that. With ourts are filled fellow citizens, tens of thousands have filled the streets because of what happened to george floyd. His death gave birth to a civil rights movement. Rebirth to a civil rights movement. What happened to george floyd sadly is not an aberration. It is a shameful norm. Last week we were told this is a civil rights moment, lets treat it as such with that seriousness. Right now there is no National Government registry of police misbehavior involving shootings since the uprising in ferguson, missouri, the white Washington Post have endeavored to catalog every fatal shooting. Since 2015 they have found 5000 such shootings. Over 100 of them in my own state of pennsylvania. Thatthey found is africanamericans are three times more likely to die as a result. This demands our action. The demands could not be louder. The death toll rises literally every day. Just this weekend we witnessed the murder of Rayshard Brooks in atlanta, another young black man. 27 years old, a father. 27 years old like my youngest son alex. This black man was shot for falling asleep in a drive through line. It should not have been a death sentence, falling asleep at the wheel as you are stopped in a drivethru. In a functioning society that would have resulted in mr. Brooks driven or escorted home. Instead he is dead. I am the mother of three white sons. Every mother worries for the safety of her sons. The same wayy africanamerican moms worry. I dont have to have that talk. One of my sons spent a little time on the edge of trouble, being pulled over by cops. He did not wind up dead. When we say black lives matter, what we are saying is black people deserve the same room to live that white people are afforded. It is not a competition. It is a call to live up to that ideal that is our countrys founding. We have seen a democratic proposal to deal with police systematic racism. That is what we are here to talk about. I dont think my colleagues on the others are going far enough. I dont think they want to address the root cause of racism in our criminal Justice System. If they did, they would want to ban chokeholds. They would want to mandate dashboard cameras, body cameras, establish a Police Misconduct registry, reform qualified immunity. Ban noknock warrants. Require deadly force be used as a last resort, not in a drivethru line at wendys. This proposal is reasonable, it is necessary, it is long overdue. Colleagues, as mr. Floyd told us, we are at a civil rights moment. What is not worthy of this moment is talk of defund the police. Thisis nowhere in proposal. Not worthy of this moment is to bring up abortion. That is not the topic of this markup. Perhaps you walked into the wrong markup. Not worthy of this moment is michael flynn, donald trump, hoax this, hooks that. About black lives matter and. It is about reforming our policing. Our colleagues on the other set of the aisle when they raise these ruses, they show a lack of seriousness about the murder of george floyd and what it represents. I will be voting no. The world is watching. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. The gentlelady yields back. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . Strike the last word. I am struck here because i think this amendment is related. I think it is relevant to what we are talking about, to the underlying purpose of this bill. I listened to my friend from texas, representative jackson shouldlk about, maybe we expand, its not complete, the suggestion was made from the gentleman from florida that maybe we expand it. I was surprised to hear this one ,rom the gentleman from georgia that there is no such thing as antifa. Maybe hes right and i have missed this. Where would i go . Im not going to go to fox because fox has been castigated multiple times in this hearing today. Im going to go to a source that i think everyone can agree should be an expert on this. Cnn. What do they say . Short forantifa is antifascist, used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left, often far left, but do not conform with the Democrat Party platform. How did the group start . The exact origins are unknown, but antifa can be traced to nazi germany, i was stunned when i read that. A militant group founded in the 1980s in the u. K. Modernday members have become more active in making themselves known at public rallies and within the progressive movement. Quote, what they are trying to do now is not only become violent at highprofile rallies, but to reach out through small meetings and social networking to cultivate disenfranchised progressives who here to forward peaceful. Look on page four of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from pennsylvania and ,he attorney general is quoted if you want to see that, you can go to abc news from the same day where he says, the doj has found evidence antifa as well as actors of a variety of political persuasions have been involved in instigating and participating in the violent activity we have seen. This is why this amendment becomes important. Get at theng to root of good policing, at reestablishing peace and safety for all americans. Goes on, this abc news article goes on to say that they have found and you are correct. It is not just antifa that has been violent. Brew ofe is a witches extremist organizations. To get at that, maybe we could expand this, come to some kind of consensus on this amendment and include this in the bill. That is what i think would be reasonable here. With that i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from pennsylvania. I am truly troubled by the fact that my colleagues across the aisle want to treat antifa with kid gloves. The fact that the victims have been minimized as, quote unquote, rightwing nationalists, the fact that antifa has been described one my colleagues as a figment of the president s imagination. Maybe the fbi is a figment of the president s imagination. The fbi has said the director of the fbi, this is director wray, he provided remarks about protests where he noted, and i quote, the fbi have quite a number of ongoing investigations of violent anarchist extremists, including those motivated by antifa or antifalike ideology. Since june of this year, the department of justice has found charges against 75 individuals allegedly involved with recent riots, including targeting Law Enforcement officers Setting Police vehicles on fire in the third precinct of minneapolis minnesota will the gentleman yield for a question . No, i reclaim my time. Before we minimize the victims of antifa, i ask for Law Enforcement officers, rightwing extremists . Before we dismiss a Domestic Terrorist Organization as a figment of the president s imagination, can we not look at the crimes that have been committed . Can we not account for how these victims have been terrorized by antifa . Theor what purpose does gentleman from louisiana seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. Ask the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying i am sitting here offended and angry as hell. Whato explain to my we always say is how we refer to each other, my good friends on the other side. By the time i am finished it will be clear we are not good friends. Who went to the fifth best Public High School in who was a victim of Excessive Force, who has a black son, who has worries you all do not, to my colleagues, especially the ones that keep introducing amendments that are a distraction from what we are talking about, you all are white males. You never lived in my shoes and you do not know what it is like to be an africanamerican male. You are saying is, if opposed to this legislation, lets have a vote. But please do not come in this room and make a mockery of the pain that exists in my community. It reminds me of the argument the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1965 Voting Rights act. 120 six people voted against the Civil Rights Act. 85 people against the Voting Rights act. They had all these side issues. Either man up and say you dont believe in it or lets talk about the real issue. We are not interested in a watereddown version of this bill. Equalityinterested in with all deliberate speed. This is a crisis. People are losing their lives. So if we have other things we want to fix, fix them in another bill, but people are dying as we talk, so i am not interested in moving at a snails pace. I am not interested in a watereddown bill that mandates nothing. I am not interested in studying antifa. Im not even interested in studying sovereign citizens right now. That is not the imminent threat black men face on a daily basis. Right now, too often, it is Law Enforcement. Those who were sworn to protect and serve. Today is toe asking deal with that. I dont mind dealing with other pieces of legislation. I dont mind dealing with other issues you all may have. Thisi dont want to leave conversation with, why am speaking now instead of later, is because i dont want you to leave here saying, we did not know. We did not know thats how you felt. I want to be Crystal Clear and i will give you the benefit of the doubt it is unconscious bias im hearing, because at worse, it is conscious bias, and that, i would hate to assume from any of the people on the other side. Will the gentleman yield . Sure. Chris i appreciate your passion. Our use adjusting your certain none of us have nonwhite children . You reflected on your black son and said none of us can understand stop. I am not about to get sidetracked about the color of our children. I reclaim my time. You said i reclaim my time. The gentleman reclaims his time. I said i reclaim my time. I know there are people on the others that have black grandchildren. It is not about the color of your kids. It is about black males. Black people in the streets that are getting killed. If one of them happens to be your kid, im concerned about him to. Clearly i am more concerned about him than you are. So let us be clear about that. You are claiming more concerned for my family . Who in the hell do you think you are . You dont know you should take those words back. Love your family suspends eman was that a nerve . The gentleman from louisiana. I appreciate you yielding. You are my good friend. We come from the same state and i respect you and i say this honestly. If all that you said is true and i believe it is, why didnt the democrats allow us to assist . Why draft the bill in the dark of night and presented to us . If you wanted to Work Together, and we want to, why not give us an opportunity . I do have an answer for that. You all were in charge for a while, we have been in charge. I have been singing the same song since 1991. People on the streets right now are demanding action right now. We saw what was just presented in the senate. It was a watereddown bill. This is a national crisis. We dont want to move with all deliberate speed. Those ideas that are good, we are willing to meet and talk about a bill. Congresswoman bass has indicated willingness to continue work as we go forward. , this is aight now critical emergency for people in this country. We should not debate everything flynn to all this other stuff. We know what we are talking about here. Vote it up or down. The gentleman time has expired. Lastmoved to strike the word. The gentlelady is recognized. I think we need to take a deep breath, all of us, republicans and democrats, care about the recent issues that have happened. I do support, as i have said before, parts of this legislation. I do respect congresswoman bass. I know she works hard and means well. There are other parts i dont and it is because Law Enforcement has said it would undermine their job. With that, i yield the balance of my time. I think my colleague from arizona. We are being presented a false choice. We have a lot we can agree on. Transparency, training, terminating bad actors. We pretty much all agree we should have body cams. We can agree to more transparency. So why not take a look, have a study on antifa . Police in seattle are not allowed to go in to the capitol hill autonomous zone. That when calls across the aisle minimize the victims of antifa, usually Police Officers, journalists, members of our military, when colleagues across the aisle minimize these unquote,s, quote rightwing nationalists, we do a disservice to not just the victims, but we turn around and we dismiss antifa, which is a terrorist organization. A Domestic Terrorist Organization. When we downplay as my colleague from drogheda did georgia data, antifa as a figment of the imagination of our president , we disrespect the victims of this Domestic Terrorist Organization. What my colleagues from new york and texas say, that this is irrelevant, that there is no proof, again, we are minimizing the damage antifa has done, we are minimizing the victims that have been targeted by antifa. To these victims deserve have antifa looked at. Reportongress deserve a of a Domestic Terrorist Organization. Abc in june of this year reported the federal intelligence bulletin had stated, and i quote, anarchist extremists continue to pose the most epic and threat of targeted significant threat of targeted assault against police as well as government buildings and Police Vehicles were damaged , sometimes with improvised incendiary devices. I dont think our police are rightwing extremists. Report,think an abc according to the fbi, is a figment of the president s imagination. In june of this year, reports , somete antifa activities of them seized control of a six block area in downtown seattle. I referred to this a moment to this a moment ago as the thomas zone. Local law the autonomous zone. Local Law Enforcement has not been allowed to engage even though Business Owners are suffering and there is a report of assault in the autonomous zone. I dont think those six syllable city blocks, and i have been there many times, is a bastion of rightwing nationalists. When you call that area a rightwing nationalist area, you are minimizing the victims of antifa. I dont think the autonomous zone is a figment of mr. Trumps imagination. I have already talked about andy ngo, who is a journalist. He was targeted specifically. I do not think andy ngo is a rightwing nationalist. I dont think when jake tapper said antifa attacks journalist, it is reprehensible, i dont think that is a figment of the president s imagination. Lets not minimize the victims of antifa. Lets take them seriously as a Domestic Terrorist Organization. I yield to my colleague from florida. I think the gentleman for yielding. It is so insincere for the gentleman from louisiana to say vote no. I dare you, if you are not interested in our feedback, our suggestions, our contribution to the legislative process, any , just of this committee do it. Dont complain. We come in good faith. I said at the hearing with mr. Floyds brother, at the start of basshearing, i thought ms. Has put together good ideas and we want to work with you. Instead of pretending you know about our personal experience the time of the gentlelady has expired. Purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition . I moved to strike the last word. I think mr. Richman for his powerful words. I asked my friends on the other side of the aisle to imagine in this moment, this historic moment, when we have before us the single most transformative piece of legislation to reform policing in america, the eyes of the nation are on this committee , and families who have lost loved ones to Police Violence are watching. Our republican colleagues are saying cant we talk about Something Else . Please. We dont want to talk about Racial Injustice. We dont want to talk about Police Brutality. We dont want to talk about fixing policing in america. Instead, lets talk about robert mueller. Lets talk about antifa. Lets talk about michael flynn. Can we talk about abortion . Lets talk about anything else but the really hard issue of fixing policing in america. Two families who have lost loved ones i say, do not worry. This committee will not be distracted. We will remain focused on this comprehensive bill on the death of george floyd and the justice in policing act which will make a difference in the lives of all american americans. Inall understand growing up a healthy and Safe Community that our children can thrive in is important. We also know there are too many politicians in this country who describe people as dangerous based on nothing more than what they look like, where they come from, where they live, stoking fears seems like a strategy for those politicians to avoid taking responsibility for the decisions they are making. Let us reject those messages of fear and division and come together. People from all racial and ethnic groups, and work for reforms that will in fact make policing work for everyone in this country. I say to my republican colleagues, can you hear the voices of the thousands and thousands and thousands of people that are protesting peacefully across america, demanding that we do something about this very serious problem to fix policing in this country so people dont have to worry about being treated differently because of the color of their skin, so they can have confidence like chokehold are barred forever, that we have accreditation in police apartments, that we hold Police Officers accountable . I was the mayor of the city of providence. The good Police Officers wanted reform more than anybody because they did not want to be painted with a broad brush when they see the killing of someone like george floyd by a Police Officer with a knee on his neck. That requires us to do something. At the very least, it requires us to focus on the problem at hand. Forthnsider solutions put in the George Floyd Justice and policing act. Intention,s not your but let us not dishonor the life that is lost by refusing to talk about this issue. I know its hard. These are uncomfortable conversations. You know what is harder . Living the experience mr. Richmond spoke about. Living the experiences of all the people we have seen lose their lives at the hands of police. The traditional effort to distract, to deflect, to focus on Something Else, simply is not going to work this time. The American People are not going to tolerate. They are demanding action. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. In an effort to get back to the here is theand, overwhelming proof in the Washington Post to be made part of the record. Without objection, and the gentleman yields back. Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. I want to thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for offering his amendment. The chair of this committee, obviously you have considerable power and ability to run this committee virtually in any manner that you want to according to the rules, but it is inappropriate for you to comment on a member on either side, though i am guessing it is generally going to be on this side, to say his amendment is nonsense when it is clearly not. Many folks, and i would hope on both sides of the aisle, would hate hate groups on the left and the right. Atifa is without a doubt domestic terrorist group. Most of the people on this committee know it. Some will admit it. Others wont. Mr. Rensselaer knows it. The president of the United States knows it because he wants to label it a Domestic Terrorist Organization. Even twitter, who has gotten some criticism, knows it, because they shut down antifa affiliated accounts. Spreadsthat antifa hate, promotes violence, encourages rioting, and in fact participates, even leads it. The protesters obviously had every right to be out in the streets protesting what happened. The violence. Much of it was antifa connected. We think. What is less clear is how antifa is organized and how they are funded, which is critical to their operations. This amendment seeks to find answers to those important questions so that we can make sure antifa and antifa related groups are stopped so they can no longer divide this nation. Protests have arisen in cities all over america. They have every right to speak out under our first amendment, and peaceably, i would emphasize peaceably, assemble. What happened to george floyd should never have happened in america or anywhere else. Notnately, not only all the protesters have acted peacefully. Windows have been broken. Police cars, police cars, Police Officers have been targeted. Anmy district in cincinnati officer was struck in the helmet by a bullet. That type of conduct is just as unacceptable as was the despicable killing of george floyd in the first place. I believe we should investigate and bring to justice the group or individuals behind these acts of violence just as the individuals responsible for the death of george floyd must be brought to justice as well. I would yield my remaining time to the gentleman from pennsylvania. I think my colleague from ohio. Maybe it is the former district judge in me or the former prosecutor, but i cannot get my head around the fact that victims of crime, victims of this Domestic Terrorist Organization have been minimized as right wing extremists, rightwing nationalists, by my colleagues across the aisle. This minimization of victims is really troubling. Especially when the victims are journalists, when the victims are members of the police, i would be remiss as a former naval officer if i did not draw attention to the incident that took place when a leader of antifa from washington, d. C. Was arrested and charged, and for those across the aisle asking, where the proof is, an arrest and charges are proof. At least proof this could be going on. I digress. Was arrested for assaulting two United States Service Members from my home state of pennsylvania, from philadelphia, and this took place in 2019. When you minimize the victims as, quote on what, rightwing nationalists, you are really calling those members of the u. S. Military rightwing nationalists, which frankly is offensive. When you say such ludicrous things as antifa is a quote unquote pigment of the president s imagination, when you say antifa and this amendment is nothing but nonsense, it is irrelevant, there is no proof, i direct you andhe litany of examples would put at the top of that list the assault that took lace took place on u. S. Service members in philadelphia. Theor what purpose does gentlelady from california seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. We keep having this conversation on antifa. I have no idea why. I dont believe there is one person over here on the democrat or republican side of the aisle that has anything to do with it, any concern about antifa. When we raise the question of the relevancy, that is why we raise it. What does it have to do with us . My colleague raised that it is not connected to the democratic party. I think over here we are all democrats, so i dont know what antifa has to do with anything. It seems there is a lot of concern about leftwing organizations. I hope my colleagues acknowledge there are rightwing movements, but there does not seem to be the right the same concern about that. My colleagues have also said there was no outreach on our side of the aisle to republicans. Since i am the chief sponsor of the bill, i did want to correct that. That is just false. It might be true that the individuals that have spoken i did not speak to, but i have spoken to many republicans here and in the senate and with your leadership and with the white house. There was participation. After this bill passes out of the committee in the house, there will be more discussions. That is why my colleagues that i sit next to her saying, why are we having all of this extraneous conversation . Either we talk about the bill or move on. Bring another amendment or something. We keep having these conversations about nothing that has to do with this bill. With that i would like to ask my dear friend from seattle if she would like to Say Something about her city since her city seems to be so popular. Im not sure how many people were there lately. If you would like, i would be happy to yield time to you. Thank you, chairwoman bass. I am stunned how much seattle is coming up over and over again. If we want to talk about seattle , i would say there are many things we should talk about. We should talk about the killing of John T Williams, a seventh generation woodcarver, an extremely talented artist who has battled problems with alcohol for much of his life. He was shot by an officer driving his patrol car who saw John T Williams walk through the crosswalk, hunched over with something in his hands, and he was shot because that was seen to be dangerous. That was proven to be absolutely false. Williams was holding a scrap of wood. His single blade pocket knife he used to carve the wood that was closed. No criminal charges were filed against that officer. A pregnant woman with Mental Health issues was shot dead by Police Officers in front of her children. Police thought a man was reaching for a gun. There was no gun. He was doing Everything Police asked him to do. No charges were filed against that officer. Three people shot dead and those are just a few examples. At least congresswoman bass, taelors wife was given the recognition we are trying to give with the justice in policing act when two years after his death his brother and a number of families killed by police had members who were killed by police works to put together a Deescalate Washington Initiative that changed the incredibly restrictive standard of proof of malice that was required for accountability and provided training for Police Officers to deescalate. That initiative passed overwhelmingly across our state with the support of major Law Enforcement groups. The things that keeping set in this hearing are false keep sadg a sad in this being in this hearing are false. What are we in Congress Going to do about the murders of george floyd and so many others . What are we going to do to bring real accountability and to provide the kind of justice people across this country are fighting for . You can keep talking about seattle if you want. Nothing you have said so far is true. The reality is that our mayor, police are, you said not allowed, that is false. The chief of police has been there every day. It is a peaceful protest zone. Fox news or whoever else you are reading, it is not true. If you want to talk about seattle, lets talk about the murders of these people and many others and our attempt to provide justice. I think you congresswoman bass for giving the time. I invite any of my colleagues to visit me in seattle. Im just a few miles away from the autonomous zone. Can the time of the gentlelady has expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition . Georgia, im sorry. Thank you, mr. Chairman. To this today, the issues of legislation and what amendments are good and what amendment are bad, i have said for 18 months, most of that as ranking member, i have heard republican members referred to on many occasions as stupid, foolish, other things. I know my friends on the others of the aisle, including the gentleman from louisiana, we have worked on stuff before. The gentleman from new york. Bills that get into lawmakers difference. Bills that get talked about our soundbites for the cameras. The reason it was brought up his wife there was not a lot of discussion run up is why there was not a lot of discussion. We did discussion for several years. Committeeen on this and for some of us, including mr. Richmond and others, we were in houston, in detroit, on the Police Working group under the previous congress. Should some of the ideas have been moved on faster . Yes, but we did not have the chance until now. Yes, there are many of us on this side, most all of us, who cannot bear the thought of what is happening and we want to get it fixed. It is not unfair to say there some amendments i would vote for and some i would not. That is the committee process. To say vote and move on is not being honest with the American People. You do not pass laws that way. The senate has got to have a say and they happen to be controlled by republicans. One of the things, it is not that we have to do anything to fix within, but let us find bigger issues. Bill, there are parts i would love for us to have detailed discussion on. Why do we use this word . Its too broad. Its going to hurt people. It is going to bind our Police Officers. It is going to take our communities and get them frustrated area frustrated. You did a great job talking about this and i appreciate it. Lets go back to something bigger. Say, let us pass this bill because we have to do something, fine. Also remember as you look forward theres going to be a time we are going to have to conference if we want this past. If we want the president to sign this, we are going to have to come together, and that means like the gentleman said, i would love to have seen more in the first act. I could not get it. My colleagues could not get there. We kept negotiating. The gentleman from new york was outstanding. Let us begin to understand this process now. This is how we are supposed to get it. Are we not hearing the voices of those in the streets . We are hearing. , the voices also also for ones who were incarcerated, and nobody cared area nobody cared for the ones who were shackled while they were giving birth. It took members on both sides of the aisle and having that discussion in debate and committee and outside of committee that actually made a difference. I understand passion. As many of you know, i understand both sides. I have been a prosecutor. Watched him come home from confrontations that broke his heart. When we talk about participation, participation means when amendments come up, you debate them, you vote them up or down like a bill. What was said by the gentlelady from Washington State, you describe several events of Mental Health. We passed a bill and we worked together because we passed it, it was a comprehensive Mental Health and criminal justice act. We gave money and grants so federal officers could train on how to identify Mental Health conditions with those they come in contact with without immediately going to they are actually able to do their job. Let us work through this. You may disagree with amendments. I may disagree. Be, itwant this to starts in this room, it does not finish in this room. Im willing to work on this because i have been working on it long before we got here. The votes on the others of the aisle know that. If you dont believe me, go to georgia. I am criticized for it regularly. So get over it. Let us get something that works and move on so the American People can say congress did their job. I yield back. For what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition . The gentleman is recognized. I dont know where my friend from georgia has been the last eight days. We had a hearing on this topic. Sitting right over there. Without a mask. I remember. We had an opportunity to talk about the bill, to make suggestions, to ask the experts. They did not do it. They talked about defunding the police, a sham issue. They brought ms. Underwood appear up here. She did not know at the time. I talked to her briefly. They did not know it was this Boogaloo Group that is the most significant crowd shown to have participated in trying to mess with rioters and change the discourse because of their behavior to try to get some benefit for them and anarchy were white separatist or whatever it was some are White Supremacists. I read your piece from cnn. Some of them are. None of them are black lives matter. They are the most focused, most identified group to have interfered with this protest that exists. Yet we get antifa. Antifa is not a group like the ku klux klan. They do not put on hoods and robes and do their thing around across. They are not organized at all. There has been no proof they have done anything at these riots. This is all about real estate. One of our members who is a real estate appraiser when he is not the most expensive real estate in the District Of Columbia is between donald trump sears. We are seeing a lesson in real estate. If you read john boltons book, there is not a lot between those years. He thought finland was part of russia. Much of what he said was not true according to mr. Bolton. That is the most expensive real estate in d. C. To a lot of people here and that is why they are talking about antifa. Police practices need to be reformed to make people respect the police and make police respect all people and to see to it are not subjugated to police and others because of the color of their skin and the history of racism that has gone on since 1619 and continues to pervade our debates, politics, social life, economic life, and culture. If anyone doesnt get it, they dont get it. There is racial bias. Pta group to got it ms. Gu got it. It is hard to escape. It is harder for some people to admit it. Said according about the voices on the streets. Have you listened to the voices on the streets . You dont have to. Listen to your conscience, if you have one. Vote for this bill and stop this malarkey about antifa, about defunding the police, about mr. Underwood. Get back to reality. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman is recognized. Im going to ask you to be fair and im addressing the chair right now. When a democrat goes over, they go over by 30 seconds and you gavel it down. When a republican goes over three seconds, you gavel it down. We need fairness. We also need fairness when the gentleman from tennessee makes derogatory statements about the president of the United States. That is against the rules of the house and he should be gavel down and warned about that. Thelso need fairness when gentleman from tennessee talks about other members, if you have a conscience, that is a derogatory statement you should not make about other members of the house. We need fairness in how we conduct these hearings. I yield to my friend from georgia. Im going to make it very clear. Thank you, you prove my case again. Thank you for doing what you do. 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 they seized 50,000, confiscated 100 50,000 in cash and another 25,000 in coins and stole the difference. The court found there was no established law that officers violate the fourth or 14th amendment when they steal property seized in pursuant to a warrant. What we are getting our 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. Case weif that were the prosecuted criminals in america. You could rob a bank if you had a red van and nobody had ever robbed a bank with a red van before. If theres a blue van and a white van, thats different. You could murder someone with a steak knife if nobody had ever been murdered with a steak knife for in that jurisdiction. Get real. This is a totally fanciful, made up doctrine. Lets get rid of it. Its a threat to the people of the United States of america. In america, those of us who aspire and attain public office, whether its elected office or appointed office are nothing but the servants of the people. The minutes we begin to act like we are the masters of the people, like we lord over them, then we are like kings and queens, monarchs and dictators, thats the moment to reject and start over again. This doctrine is corrupt. It does not belong in the United States of america. We dont need any more hearings about it and you know that. If theres Something Else in the bill, say you dont like it but lets establish a record that we need to get rid of this perverse qualified immunity doctrine foisted on the people of the United States by judges. 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. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] next week, watch house votes on policing reform and the sea legislation. Thursday, live on cspan, house will debate and vote on the democrats policing reform bill, the George Floyd Justice in policing act. On friday, live on cspan, the house will vote on legislation to designate the District Of Columbia as a state. Watch next week live thursday and friday on cspan, online at cspan. Org or listen live on the free cspan radio app. During the summer months, reach out to your elected officials with cspans congressional directory. It contains all the Contact Information you need to stay in touch with members of congress, federal agencies and state governors. Order your copy online today at cspan store. Org. Senator doug jones led a dr. Martin luther king jr. s 1963 letter from birmingham jail. This runs one hour and 25 minutes. Alabama. Mr. Jones thank you, madam president. Madam president , one of the greatest documents that i believe ever written was written on scraps of paper in a lonely jail cell in birmingham, alabama in 1963. The letter from a birmingham jail written by Martin Luther king is a call to action. Last year for the first time in the history of this body, the entire letter was read on the senate floor. Three republicans, three democrats, a bipartisan effort, a bipartisan reading of a letter that is so important the words of