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

Mr. Terra, there seems to be a good amount of dispute as to what life is like in the chaz. The gentle lady from washington says it is like a peaceful Poetry Community garden and yet we see these reports of rapes and delayed Response Time and videos of people assaulting each other and demanding raised based payments racebased payments. I would ask would you be willing to host a congressional allegation in the chaz so we might also be able to go there and show the country what is happening, observe it in real time, and if the chaz is something majority would like to have spread across the country, perhaps you can make that case in vivid color but i will yield to tell whether he would be willing to yield lead a delegation to the chaz. The time is expired. Moved to strike the last word. Chair the gentleman is recognized. I rise in opposition to the amendment for a couple of reasons. I thank the gentle lady from washington for sharing with committee what is happening in her own district. This protest is part of peaceful protest across america. Protesting and demanding change is as american as it gets. What is particularly troubling about this amendment is if you look at the definition of autonomous zones a means as zone in a unit of local government that is autonomous by authority of the jurisdiction in which it exists. A person or group of person cannot declare a part of the city is not subject to this jurisdiction of that city. What we have here is a City Government managing a peaceful protest by creating a place where people are going to create an opportunity for their voices to be heard. That is what local government does. But your definition does not exist in as a matter of law. No group of citizens can declare themselves not a legal part of the authority of the jurisdiction in which they exist. Worse than that, youre in men it says it is up to the attorney general of the United States. So we can just decide, i think that is an autonomous own and to federal funding. This is fraught with extraordinary problems. It undermines the ability of people in this country to peacefully assemble. What is shocking to me, to be frank, is that in the middle of the biggest protest may be in our lifetimes, thousands and thousands of people across this country demanding change, that my republican colleagues would spend times not focused on the important lease reforms in this bill, but again an effort to mischaracterize and instruct and by the way the protests of people in this country are an important reason we are here today because there demanding change. They will not tolerate the failure of the congress of the United States from this moment. To respond to this moment. Protest might make people uncomfortable but it is causing action to finally be taken and with that i yield the remainder of my time to the gentlelady from washington. Thank you mr. Cicilline. I again want to say i do not know how to keep telling people that what they are saying are lies. Im stunned people continue to do that. People have said the Seattle Police Department East Precinct was taken over by protesters and that is incorrect. That is incorrect. Didon the ground commander not follow the command of the police chief and cited to retreat, nobody has taken over that building. Theres no protesters inside. Theres nobody blocking the ability of the Seattle Police to come back. The Seattle Police department and the mayor are in close touch with the protesters there. As mr. Cicilline said they are managing the protest in a way that is completely peaceful. Please do not continue to say these things and mr. Gates citing fox news. Posting has admitted to pictures that were manipulated. Digitally manipulated. Yelled . The lady yield . Fox news has continued to post information that is inconsistent and from a city that is not seattle. So please stop this nonsense and lets get back to the bill at hand. For what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition . Moved to strike the last word. I want to respond to a couple of things we have heard. Paul and ie ms. Trust her eyewitness account but we are not seen just doctor pictures of this. Theres a lot of film on other channels other than fox news. And believe in or not to our colleagues we do watch other channels on occasion and i have seen this on cnn and even msnbc, there is graffiti everywhere and it looks to the average american like lawlessness because that is what it is and to my friend mr. Cicilline the other peaceful protests around the country they are not self describing as Law Enforcement free microstates and that is how chaz, the organizers there describe themselves, Law Enforcement free microstates within a state. That is the definition of anarchy. Law enforcement free is without the rule of law and theres no other definition that fits so it is comical that you are saying we are misportraying this because everyone can see with your own eyes. Heres the question. Is it ok if they refuse to abide by the law or specifically the federal law, should they be entitled to federal funds should they have water and sewer or wifi and cell service or Police Protection . It is claimed that is around the perimeter of this but what about inside it. The lesko amendment is a serious one directly relevant to what we are doing and jermaine. It is an amendment that strict funding under the Community Oriented policing services or cops, and byrne Grant Funding program through the department of justice for localities that refuse to enforce the law and allow for autonomous territories to be established on u. S. Soil. This is unprecedented because it is absolutely crazy. You can call it an Arts Festival or whatever it is. Their areople inside ignoring the lot. It is not lawful to go around and paint a Police Station with graffiti. Ok. We do not tolerate that and where else in the country. Why, because we are a nation of laws and not of men as john adams described us if we abandon that we abandon that as a people. This is a republic. Democratic principles and in a Constitutional Republic you have to have the rule of law. This is government of by and for the people in the police are an extension of the people. They get to apply the law in every area of every city. That is who we are in this country. There may be other places on the globe where you can engage in this kind of anarchy but it is not in america and if they are not going to play by the rules and abide the lot they should not be able to get federal funds to that jurisdiction. As a meaningful amendment. White is reasonable and important for us to discuss is as we are dealing with limited federal funds, there are not a lot of community funding. And the byrne jagged funding, the grant is limited. Our Law Enforcement agencies that are trying to enforce the lot need it desperately and we hear about it all the time. So if there are some of these jurisdictions and we want to go down this road, they should yield their funding to those he will use and apply it lawfully and appropriately and that is why we support this amendment and why this is an important debate. I think is wrong for you to dismiss it. For what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition . Obviously another in a string of distractions from the matter at hand. Im glad to see our colleague from seattle who looks like she has survived this outbreak of Community Gardens and block parties and midianite movie nights in her district. Toant to add a few points what the gentleman from rhode island was saying about the curious language in which this amendment is offered to us. For one thing, i would think the attorney general, who is dutch who has basically made a monarch who has basically made a monarch out of this, would be the first to say this unconstitutional. As has at this german a determination shall be made under the sole and unreviewable determination of the attorney general. I thought the attorney general believed in the in a fight executive theory that everything in the executive ranches under the command and control of the president of the United States, so this would seem to be a usurpation of the president ial powers by the attorney general. Im also curious about the massively broad language, of the definition of an autonomous zone, which is perfectly circular. An autonomous zone means a zone in a unit of local government that is autonomous, from the government or authority of the jurisdiction. On that theory i think the attorney general barr could determine lots of municipalities in the state of maryland could becaused autonomous they are given whole dutch home rule under the government in which they exist. There are a lot of cities and towns that exist in my state that operate autonomously from the county in which they exist for different purposes. So look, if we want to get serious about the problem of lawlessness breaking out,. Can you told this time so we can hear . Chair we will proceed. Thank you, mr. Chairman, we will proceed. Look, america has come to this before. In times of great social stress. Everybody sees lawlessness somewhere else. So i am not afraid of the lawlessness breaking out in seattle and i think the seattle authority seem to be perfectly on top of it. I will tell you what lawlessness i am of. Im afraid of what took place between attorney general bill barr and president trump, when secretsembled a Paramilitary Force of unidentified federal officers, largely from the bureau of prisons as we understand, also from the park place, other federal agencies, unnamed, still unidentified. And theyeashed unleashed that force, with tear gas, with pepper spray, and rubber bullets, on hundreds of american citizens who were exercising their rights under the First Amendment. Including a lot of my constituents, who were knocked over and pushed down by this force that was unleashed by the attorney general. There are six rights contained in the First Amendment. They violated every single one of those rights. At least five of the sixth and argued lee the sixth. The right to peacefully assemble was trampled. By that force to put together. The right to petition government for redress of grievances, which is why those people came to washington dc to speak to congress about the urgent need for sweeping Police Reform. Precisely the legislation we have come together to talk about today. Their freedom of speech, obviously. The freedom of the press as reporters worked trampled and their cameras taken out of their hands i them and pushed to the side. You can read the reportage of the journalists who got caught up in bill barr and Donald Trumps police riot that they unleashed on the streets of washing, d. C. The free exercise of religion as the president decided to barge into the st. Johns episcopal church, prompting rebukes not just from the a pits a bowl episcopal bishop of washington, d. C. , but the Catholic Bishop of washington, d. C. And then no establishment of religion, as the president took someone elses bible and turned it upside down, and waved it over his head. Essentially converting his own endless lust for power into an idol about the lord of the bible. You could say he violated the First Amendment rights of all of those people so he could cross the street and violate the first commandment. That is what they did. There, i do see a lot of lawlessness. What i trust that attorney general . Who organized that spectacle and assault on the civil rights and Civil Liberties of the people, to decide where money is going to go in terms of state and local governments . No, not me. I can sympathize with the representative from washington. What that, i will yield to my friend from arizona. Mr. Sharon, can i make a point of order . Point of order. Numbers attending remotely seem not to be complying consistently with the new house rules topic says members are dissipating remotely must continue to use the softwares video function. We have been instructed on that many times. It has been intermittent throughout the day and im wondering if you can remind everybody of that. The point of order is not well taken. Members are visible, if they are not visible, they are not participating. That is not what the rule says. I have aman point of order to make. The gentlelady will continue. The point of order is there are members who are not Wearing Masks in the room. That point of order is well taken. Of course. Members will that is not a house rule. This is a rules committee and the rules said the videos have to be on. We voted on that. [crosstalk] members will put on their masks, not just to follow the ofse rules in consideration not bringing physical danger to their colleagues. The gentlelady will proceed. Proceed. Elady will the gentlelady will proceed. Thank you, mr. Chairman. If nothing else, this amendment points out the stark contrast ween what we believe here i can tell you what my constituents do not believe taking over part of a city is a peaceful protests. Taking over a Police Precinct is part of a peaceful protests. If it is just this love and theater, why are there fences around it . Why not let everybody in . Why have a fence . Why have armed people questioning people coming in . This is ridiculous. Now we are going to say people taking over a city is totally fine . In one way, im sad and in another way, we are pointing out what a difference is between what we believe in. Constituents in my district think it is totally nuts. With that, i will yield back. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . I moved to strike the last word. The jerome and is recognized. Thank you. Are here today because our government has murdered black americans routinely. Now we are concerned about civilian leftwing groups and white and right wing groups . Sure. Possible issues of censorship, maybe. Is there an issue related to protesters in seattle . Sure. But it has nothing to do with Police Killing black americans. Somethingbring up congressman richman said. Its offensive to many of us when my republican colleagues bring up random issues that have nothing to do with how we control our government from killing black americans. Understand i will never understand what it is like to be a black american. I can imagine what it will be like, but i can never fully understand. I do know what it is like to be an Asian American. President says chinese virus and causes hate crimes to spike across america, that affects me. When an Asian American family in texas get stabbed because people think they are spreading coronavirus, that is very disturbing. I dont fearrences for my life from the police. My children do not either. I dont have to have that talk with my kids. Black americans do. They fear for their life because the police have systematically killed many of them. In fact, just today, charges were brought against the two officers in atlanta that shot a black american running away from them who was sleeping in his car. My republican colleagues to understand you are talking about Michael Flynn and you are talking about google and twitter and protests in seattle . Things that have nothing to do with our government ordering black americans. Its offensive when you bring up these random issues that show that you dont get the problem. I want you to have some humility many of usand why minorities get offended by your tactics and stop with your random amendments and comments about issues that have Nothing Police murdering black americans. We are here to solve that and if you want to solve it, stop with the distractions. The gentleman yields back. I want to announce in accordance with what i said this morning, the attending physician of the house has said it is imperative for the health and safety of the people in this room that members wear masks. I would greatly prefer all presence observed that the quorum of the committee by complying with reasonable Safety Standards recommended by the attending physicians and i have been gratefully lenient today but i will tell you now that anyone who is not wearing a mask will not be recognized to speak. Mr. Chairman . Is next. Scobar a point of parliamentary mcclintock has try to midpedal he to make his point. Repeatedly to make his point. You just had a democrat speak. Its our turn. Miss escobar has the time. No, she doesnt. Mr. Lou just spoke. Its the republicans turn in mr. Mcclintock has tried for several minutes to be recognized on a point of order. There is no point of order. Who seeks recognition to speak . I seek recognition for a point of parliamentary inquiry. I would like the chairman to cite the house rule requiring members to wear masks in house proceedings. If we had such a vote, i dont recall it. If we have such a vote, i will vote against it. Happy to abide by it if they also decides. Until then, i would like for you to cite me that rule. Authority to assert the preservation of decorum derives from the speakers Enforcement Authority under clause two. The rules of the house and rules committee is aqua bowl applicable. I am enforcing this has nothing to do with decorum. This has nothing to do with decorum. Decorum means among other things the safety of the members of the committee. Tothen mr. Chairman, i move strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you. Mask, sir. To wear a i do not. I ask you to respect my choice as i respect yours. It is not your choice i dont yield my time. I consider much more effective at spreading panic and much less effective at stopping the virus for anyone under 50 and healthy is less severe than the flu. The chair has recommended Wearing Masks pardon me, mr. Chairman, the chair has recommended Wearing Masks when we are not speaking, but that they are not necessary when we are speaking. Oddly, we are told by Health Experts that masks are most recommended while speaking. Which leads me to believe theres more virtue signaling than virtue and all of this. The attending physician of decision has made the it is the safe and prerogative of the speaker and the Committee Chairman to enforce decorum, which means enforcing safety as defined by the attending physician. I am doing that and members who do not wear a mask will not be recognized. That is the least i can do. Who seeks recognition . Miss escobar . Thank you, mr. Chairman, i move to strike the last word. Before i begin, i have to say how stunning it is there are so many of our colleagues who have such little regard for our safety and our health and who are willing to put their colleagues at such risk. It really is a stunning and unfortunate statement they are making. But to the point i would like to make, i want to tell my colleague, representative jayapal, that i feel your pain. I am so empathetic to it youre going through, if you hear your community aligned community medline. Committees like mine on the southern border have long been maligned by our republican colleagues and have been on their target list for hyperbole. What is clear here is that they have this desperate need for a boogie man, whether its the southern border, whether it is seattle, theres always a community where people put a target in order to create fear. It is a way to divide us, a way to incite fear of fellow americans, and it is a way to distract from the real challenges that we face. Frankly, it is tragic. Its tragic we have seen blood spilled, weve seen people shot, we have seen people suffocated by Law Enforcement officers who were supposed to protect their community. A majority of the people who are dying at the hands of Law Enforcement are black and Brown Brothers and sisters. Hearingagic that at a intended to seek justice and reform, they turn it into an attempt to distract from the more thanat hand stop eight hours into this hearing and we are still debating amendments that have nothing to do with George Floyds death and the American Civil Rights movement that demand change from us. I want to Say Something to the public watching at home. Listen to their amendments. Listen to what they have chosen to debate. Listen to their effort to distract. Dont forget what they have chosen to focus on when you cry out for change. I would like to yield to my colleague, the gentlelady from pennsylvania. Thank you to my colleague. I will take just a moment. It is dismaying, utterly dismaying, the willful ignorance as to the science in terms of the use of masks to protect yourself and protect others. We do have a right to not wear a mask come but you dont have a right to then expose others. So why dont you do this by way of video . Just what my colleague argued, i was thinking the very same thing. This is a stunningly inappropriate amendment. Number one, its not your district. You do not know whats going on the ground there and we have good testimony from the representative of that district that you are misrepresenting whats going on. If the Minority Party is so confirm so concerned with the takeover of six blocks for Peaceful Protesters in seattle, where were you, where are you now with what the president did in Lafayette Square . Aided by the attorney general, using other members of his administration as props, along with a borrowed bible to try to get an iconic photo op. Where were you with that illegal action on the behalf of our president . Interrupting, with Police Officers and military, with rubber bullets and tear gas, the very thing this country stands for the ability to express by way of peaceful protest in of all places Lafayette Square. Verseinds me of a bible that i had a hard time really understanding or maybe accepting. It is matthew seven why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye . How can you say to your brother let me take that speck out of your eye when all the time there is a plank in your own. With that, i yield back. Mr. Chairman, i would close with this. [indiscernible] lady yieldse you back, question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. The nose and have it. I call for a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. Role [calling role] [roll call continues] mr. Lou . Mr. Lieu . Are there any members who wish to vote who have not voted . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 12ayes nos. The amendment is not agreed to. I have an amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. Offered by mr. Steube of florida the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive heard a lot of talk about how this bill is a reaction to George Floyds death and miss escobar was talking about how the eminence previously offered have nothing to do with George Floyds death and they should be ignored for that fact. In the bill before us today, there is a ban on no knock warrants and in drug cases. Its my understanding this to floyd was being arrested for a forgery situation, nothing to do with a drug case. It was not an execution of a drug warrant and has absolutely nothing to do with the death of george floyd. So this amendment would strike section 306 e2 of the bill. Let me put out a little bit of common sense. If you are a drug dealer and you have drugs and a lawenforcement officer has gone through the effort of getting a probable cause affidavit and goes before the judge and has probable cause to execute a warrant on a drug dealer who has drugs, what do you think the drug dealer is going to do with those drugs if you are required to knock before the Law Enforcement officer enters . The drugs are going to be there anymore because they are going to be flushed down the toilet. Let me give you a quick illustration. For my colleagues from florida, this will be even more poignant to you, especially on the others of the aisle. May 3, 2013. I will ask for this unanimous consent to be put in the record. Nets enough bust fentanyl to kill 500,000 people. Month florida, a six investigation resulted in the seizure of three pounds of lethal fentanyl, 75 firearms, and arrests of 60 people or more. The attorney general said opioids are killing 17 people a day in florida. Died00 people could have for the amount of fentanyl seized. That was three pounds, just a little tiny piece of fentanyl on your pinky finger can kill you. I just did a little simple math three pounds equals 48 ounces. I happen to have two yetis in my office in the Judiciary Committee meetings these are 30 ounces apiece. 30 ounces apiece. Killnces of fentanyl would 500,000 people. This can hold 60 ounces. You are the fentanyl dealer in florida and the Law Enforcement agency is required to knock on your door before they execute that warrant, what do you think is going to happen yeti full of fentanyl cometh going to be dumped in the toilet before Law Enforcement gets in there and executes that warrant on people killing thousands and thousands of people in florida. Opioid overdoses in florida in 2018 was 3700 27 dad. In 2017, it was 4280 people died of overdoses. 37,027 people dead. Executeicer was able to these warrants and arrest over 100 different people who are killing floridians every single day in our streets. If we ban no knock warrants in drug cases, the moment that Law Enforcement officer knocks on the door, the heroin dealers door, the amount of fentanyl is sink,to be dumped in the in the toilet and flushed and you are not going to be able to perpetuate a rest an arrest because the drugs are not going to be present. I contend i dont know what this has to do with the george floyd case if we are here to provide justice for him. I would contend we take the ban on no knock warrants out and theres actually a quick little solve of the problem. I had a colleague on my side of the aisle that has a problem with no knocks. I talked to my father who is a former sheriff and they have a solution to that. So in a case where we dont hit the wrong house, they have a policy in place the drug officer and undercover officer goes with the person executing the search warrant to make sure they are hitting the right house. Lets put that in the bill. Lets make sure when the swat team which typically is the one that executes search warrants knows through the drug undercover officers exactly who it is and which house it is, you can put this in the bill and still be taking people off the streets that could possibly kill 500,000 floridians in my state to the tune of 17 people a day. So im willing to work with you on that but im not willing to ban no knock warrant executions. For that, i yield back. The gentle and yields back. For what purpose does the gentle lady from florida seek recognition . Moved to strike the last word. The gentle lady is recognize. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman. Of my colleague from florida and i applaud his in the work that he did to keep our state safe. I have managed numerous highrisk operations and i know how extremely high risk and dangerous serving warrants can be. Particularly no knock warrants. As im sure my colleague from search knows, highrisk for it highrisk search warrants, no knock search warrants are the highest of risks. And while i applaud the deputies and officers who serve on our swat teams, they have a tremendous job to do, our primary responsibility is to make sure we not only keep our officers and deputies safe, but we protect the public. Police chief, i was always concerned anytime i swat team went out to survey no knock warrant. We know mistakes have been made and i heard your recommendation about sending a drug officer out. I appreciate that as well, but Breonna Taylor lost her life. Written people disposing of drugs, flushing drugs down the toilet when they knew the police have them surrounded, but mr. Chairman, there are no amount of drugs more important no amount of drugs we can confiscate or Law Enforcement can confiscate that are more important than a human life. Theet again, i believe situation at this moment affords us the opportunity to right the wrongs that are out there, tighten up our policy, and move forward with better legislation that protects our officers and protects the public. With that, i stand in opposition of the amendment that has been proposed. But i appreciate my colleague from florida and with that, i will yield back. Gentlelady yields back. For what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. The time for studying the issue of no knock warrants is over. No knock warrants are inherently dangerous. This is not just about justice, its about the human cost. No knock warrants have taken too many lives, including that of Breonna Taylor. Injusticeignore the that occurred to her. She would have been just 27 last week. She was a daughter, she was an shot at leastas eight times by police as she lay in her own bed and police broke down the door of her own apartment to execute a no knock warrant the warrant was not intended for Breonna Taylor or her boyfriend. In fact, it targeted another person who lived miles away and who had already been detained by the time police entered Breonna Taylors home. The officers who executed a no knock warrant and in the process executed Breonna Taylor have yet to be charged and no officer has been fired. If anyone questions why we need to ban no knock warrants or reform the way policing is done in this country, look no further than that example. What happened to george floyd and Breonna Taylor and so many others is why Peaceful Protesters all over this country are chanting black lives matter and demanding action. It is because we see over and over again that our policing system acts as if black life do not matter. We see this one for Police Officers respond to a call that a black man might have used a counterfeit 20 bill, and that man, george floyd, was murdered. We see it when Police Respond to a call for help for a black woman in need of Mental Health treatment, and that woman was murdered. Calledit when police are to respond to a black man selling loose cigarettes, and that man, eric garner, was murdered. We see it when officers respond to a black man sleeping in his car at a wendys, and that man, rayshard brooks, was murdered. We see it when Police Execute a botched no knock warrant and toss a hand grenade into the home of a black woman getting dressed for work. That woman was murdered. Sayur justice system, we that people are innocent until proven guilty. But under our current system, black americans are denied justice. In practice, our system has a presumption of guilt simply for being black. Think of Breonna Taylors case. She was not guilty of any crime the only thing she was guilty of his being black and asleep in her own bed in her own home. All lives cannot matter until black lives matter. I oppose this amendment. We have to do better than this. And i would yield to my colleague from california. Thank you. I certainly understand the concern here, as someone who has prosecuted cases with dangerous entries into homes and residents, with two brothers who do that routinely, i think about what you just described and i brought this up with my brothers a couple of weeks ago as we were considering this legislature and they point out to me that routinely on drug cases, what they will do to limit the is you cant happens detain and arrest a subject at a different location and then, at go same time simultaneously into the house. Im sure chief demings would testify thats a tactic Law Enforcement uses all the time. There are going to be dangerous situations where you dont want to tip off a subject and have to go in with a no knock warrant. What we are saying is in nonserious situations, why even increase the likelihood you can take someones life if there are other tactics available that would address your concern that a person could destroy evidence. Why not get them on a traffic stop and seize the drugs without having to have a violent encounter . Spirit ofe tenor and this legislation, to limit what happened unjustly to ms. Taylor for drug cases, and i yelled back. German yieldsthe back. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . The gentleman is recognized. Of thise in support amendment. I appreciate the thoughtful this is not unlike the qualified immunity doctrine and the point we were trying to make earlier. These abuses that have been cited are terrible and we need to address that. You will not find anyone up here who disagrees with that. But the point of the no knock, you said a moment ago that we have all the information we need, its time to ban the practice. Thats simply not true. We havent had any hearing, any thoughtful debate and brought in experts to testify on that issue. A massive change in policing for the country where we have not done our Due Diligence and there will be serious ramifications from tossing this baby out with the bathwater. Ive talked to a lot of Law Enforcement officers over the last many days as i guess some have here. Last night, i spent a lot of time on the phone with my colleague from louisiana. Clay higgins. He had many years and he was telling me how many warrants he executed in his career. Countless many warrants. He said what you need to understand is the no knock warrant is designed to protect public safety. It is designed to protect the officers serving the warrant and the suspect. Why is that . Because the way they do these things first of all, they are very rare, its a High Standard these, itsn one of difficult to obtain because you have to show there is a person with a violent history or a person who made a Statement Like i will not be taken alive or that they have a record of weapons in the home. Thats an inherently dangerous situation for all parties involved. So they time it so that they go at 3 00 in the morning when they know everyone is asleep and when someone wakes out of a slumber, they dont have time to grab the shotgun and start firing. So they will take the assailant, they will cuff them and then do of therch of the Drug Paraphernalia or whatever is being sought. This is designed to save lives, not violate fourth moment rights. It has worked effectively in the cases where it is executed. Finish. We are not saying there have not been out outrageous abuses of this. We can collectively look into these specifics and fine tune this so it works for everyone. Law enforcement or anyone of any race. But it takes time to do that. I know we want to rush to get a solution. Everyone does post there is a republican bill being introduced tomorrow and im sure we are all going to sponsor it. But we have to come to the right solutions. We dont want to endanger Law Enforcement. What if it is your little brother or sister who is a young, ricky cop . We are concerned about their safety and theres a reason we have allowed this. I think we open a pandoras box here and thats what we are seeing. Please dont call us obstructionist or we dont understand or empathize with the situation or understand the gravity of it. It is the opposite. Lets do it this committee is designed to do and go through this methodically so we can make changes that will actually solve the problem and keep everybody safe. Willie jett one yield . I appreciate the tenor of your remarks in the spirit with which you offer them. Theres another bill coming forward, i take it is the bill from the senate side and we will all become cosponsors what are the provisions related to no knock in that bill . Its not even in the legislative text yet. Was interesting is saying you had no problem that you would join a but there has not been a hearing on it. Thats exactly my point. The reason i would not support a no knock ban is because we havent studied it yet, my friend. We have not done our job here. To paint with this broad brush and throw this out and jeopardize not only drug provisions but the safety of the officers we are sending out on that blue line to serve these warrants, that is what we are concerned about. Please dont make it about anything else. Its disingenuous and is not fair to us. We are just as concerned stop i have family numbers and Law Enforcement and im worried about their safety. They are being hunted down like they are the enemy of society and they protect society. They are the sheepdogs that keep us safe and we ought to keep that in mind. Yes, we want to protect black lives, and all lives, including those who put theirs on the line to maintain the rule of law and safety. Im sorry i get emotional, but it is an emotional subject and i yelled back. Chair nadler for what purpose does the gentle lady from texas rise . Gentlemansate the emotion. I think we have all on this day had a moment of emotion and continue to be in pain. To enforce the words of the chairman as relates to covid19 and make mention of the congressperson from South Carolina whose name i will not call who did not wear a mask and has indicated he, his wife, and child have covid19. We are not frivolous in our call for a mask to protect all of us, and i would hope my colleagues would adhere to that. Objectiond offer an to the gentlemans amendment from florida, but i chose not to do so. To allow this full debate and to indicate it was germane to the extent that it spoke to a section in the bill. But i do think, as mr. Johnson has evidenced his emotion, it is important to rhea sort reassert, that not one member of this committee, no matter their party has not embraced the value of Law Enforcement, the desire for them to go home to their families and to be safe. I think removing the section on no knock does quite the opposite. In the Breonna Taylor case, an officer was shot and Breonna Taylor was killed. Who has had the responsibility of finding probable cause warrants no our task is to be thorough but quick. When officers come in who are usually undercover, whatever level of court there is, it depends on the level of pc you are reviewing. All of them can cause harm to those whose home you approach or the actual Law Enforcement officer. I think the approach of the general is not correct of the gentleman is not correct. Because no knocks do cause lossoflife. We had it happen in houston, texas. Residents whodead didnt know who was coming in. Several officers critically wounded. Temporarily, i believe. Assive confusion this happens all over america. Scenarios, it creates increased risk of death or injury. Bystanders are also caught in the crossfire. Two states already outlaw no knock, and of course, you cannot deny what happened to Breonna Taylor. Here is another point. No knock is relevant because the bill is about transforming policing in america. Giving new ideas and new approaches to do what is expected of Law Enforcement, and that is to security community, protect and serve, but to do it in a way to memorize lossoflife, whether its the officer or whether it happens to be the person engaged with the officer. That doesnt seem to happen with no knock. And as we make our way to the floor, there are other options to look at some of the other thoughts mr. Johnson may have. But im not prepared to accept the gentle mens amendment from florida to eliminate our provision on no knock because i truly think theres enough documentation, even if we use Breonna Taylor and there are many other examples, you will find examples where there was lossoflife unnecessarily because of no knock. As i listen to the words of another colleague, you know where the houses. The drugs do not disappear. You can do a traffic stop or pedestrian stop or arrest the person elsewhere and have officers at that very time surround the home and secure the drugs. It is creative policing. Its policing to protect the community, but save lives. Why are we here . We want to transform policing orderkey element is law with safety and security and lessen the lossoflife. Police at the nations films and movies. It is all about bloodshed. In real life, you do not get up again to play another role and i think we need to get rid of no knock to save lives. I yield back. Chair nadler the gentlelady yields back. For what purpose does the gentlelady the german from louisiana stand . I will very quickly respond to what i believe is a wellintentioned amendment. The no knockate warrant actually puts the police in as much danger as it does the occupant of the home. People 2010 and 2016, 94 were law lost their life in the execution of a no knock warrant. 94 were Police Officers. So, if we look at the day and age we are in with stand your other selfdefense statutes regarding the home, it is just as dangerous for police citizens. S it is for i would like unanimous consent article, a st. Johns to knock or not to knock, no knock warrants and confrontational policing. Without objection. Thank you. Seniors the story of a being awakened around 4 a. M. On december 5, 2015. A team of new york Police Officers. In, he hurt his door kicked he remained in the bed because he was scared. He was 92 years old. Saw a man pushing his brotherinlaw, a 69yearold man into the room. The man was asking what is happening . Then he heard a shot. 69yearold in the chest and killed him. This did not have to happen. Is e are saying here and i believe that with intelligentow and policing, there are multiple alternatives to a no knock warrant and we should not put our officers lives in jeopardy and we certainly shouldnt create an instance where someone in their home hears someone kick their door down and has to make that same splitsecond decision without any training, whether it is friend or foe coming through the front door. , and toust tell you whoever is listening, if someone kicks in my front door, they will not be greeted with a hug or a smile whether friend or foe because im going to imagine they are foe, just like i believe any protector of the home would believe. I think this is wellintentioned, i would say i think the Law Enforcement Community Comes down on both sides on this issue. If we lost 94 people over a span of six years, then i believe that is 94 lives we should still have. Thats 13 Law Enforcement officers that we did not have to lose. If this portion of the bill saves those 94 lives, i will always side on the side of caution and saving lives. With that, mr. Chairman, yield back. Chair nadler the gentleman yields back. Mr. Chairman . Chair nadler for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . The gentleman is recognized. I agree with mr. Richman on this. Some armed intruder barges into my house at 2 00 in the morning, theres going to be a gunfight. William pitt this way. He said the poorest man in his cottage may bid defiance to all the forces of the crowd. Its root mayil, shake, the wind may blow through it, the rain may enter. The kinging event of england cannot enter. His forces dare not cross the threshold of d ruin tenant. Under they do so authority of a judicial warrant. This is not only to protect the thezen, it products officers from such a necessary confrontation. I yield back. Chair nadler the gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the amendment all in favor of the amendment . Sorry the general and from north dakota. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would want to know a lot more data about the 13 People Killed and the warrants issued because when used properly, they are only used against either the most dangerous situations or dangerous criminals. But i think i come at this from a little different standpoint and this is maybe a little bit of federalism. Knockhe problem with no warrants is that they exist. The problem is they are abused. The problem isnt that these tragedies occur, the problem is when other places have done it right, now we are going to ban it. North dakota has a very strict statute regarding no knock warrants. Not only do you need probable cause to get the warrant, but you need to have a probable cause finding by a judge with findings in that warrant regarding destruction of evidence, danger to yourself, danger to your community. Casesst majority of drug that i have ever seen or witnessed in court have no reason to have a no knock warrant. But we went through a significant methamphetamine crisis in our state and in our reason in our region. Im not sure if you are aware, but people who are addicted to methamphetamine, they like guns, they like video cameras and they tend to be pretty edgy and they are not afraid to use those things. While we are dealing with those issues, if there are problems with this and tragedies that occur, i understand that and i wish they didnt happen but there are other places that have figured out how to do those things and we are going to take and regardapproach them nationwide and we are going to do it again, every one of these sections should have a hearing and we should have had one the day after the hearing we should have had one, should we should have had a markup. I have worked on criminal Justice Reform my entire adult life and i agree with the senator from georgia when he spoke earlier that there are a lot of things that go into this to make sure that you get it right, but im telling you there are places that get it right and that have real safeguards in place to not only protect the people where the warrant is being issued, but protect the officer safety in situations that can only be described as extremely dangerous. Will the gentleman yield . I will. A thoughtful discussion and the only addition i would make is again, with the Breonna Taylor case. You are right. There are thoughtful ways to look at no knock. And i want to refer you to the fact that the legislation we is on federal no knock. At the difficulty is when you see cases like Breonna Taylor, which is a model for what not to do. Because in that issue, the person was in custody. What happened was a person unsuspecting of someone breaking into their house in the dark of havoc that person created in protecting their home, shot an officer, as you well know, and then a barrage of gunfire against the young woman by the name of ms. Taylor. There is too much room for havoc is i think what we will find being successful on the federal local authorities, state and local governments will begin to redefine how they do no knock and some may decide to abolish it, others may do something otherwise, but what we are doing here is setting a transformational model to try to save lives. I yield back. I am hopeful that occurs. I know we have redone our federal sentencing guidelines and many states have been slow to respond to that. Im hopeful, you are correct, and with that, yield back. Chair nadler the question occurs on the amendment all in favor of the amendment say aye. All it all of those opposed, sayno. S habit. I ask for a recorded vote. Chair nadler the court the clerk will call the roll. Call] [roll call] chair nadler is there anyone who voted that wishes to vote . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 nos. And 24 the amendment is not agreed to. For what purpose does the roman seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment. Amendment to the amendment and the nature of the substitute 27120, offered by mr. Gates of florida. Z of florida. Chair nadler the gym and is recognized to explain his moment. As my colleagues may have noticed in the last vote, i voted against the amendment to remove the provisions the majority had included regarding no knock warrants. For those keeping track of this multifaceted ill, the current crop majority in the house wants to end these no knock warrants and based on what i have seen from senator scott and his interviews describing his legislation, he says he would like to study no knock warrants and it would seem to me a study would be appropriate for precisely all the reasons mr. Johnson identified. We want to collect data on where these no knock warrants are being deployed. Is there a disparity on race, geography, on how urban or compact the districts or simply be personnel . But i do not believe while we are studying the question of no knock warrants that we ought to let cases like Breonna Taylor pileup. I dont believe americans should have to die while the government is studying something when we have seen such catastrophic impact of the no knock warrant regime in some cases. I also philosophically agree with what mr. Mcclintock has said about the sanctity of the home and those of us who have a bit of a libertarian streak, a constitutional street, we view the home as a castle and its an extreme exercise of government power to enter someones home. I come with this amendment to try to bridge that gap. That senatorstudy scott believes is important, that mr. Johnson clarified, while at the same time not allowing these no knock warrants in drug cases pursuant to the idea chairman nadler and representative bast have suggested. This amended will tell us whether or not we are desirous in this committee of having a bill. We all know with the republican control of the senate, we are going to have to Work Together on some of these things. Were going to have to Work Together to get the president to sign the legislation and it would be very sad to me if we allowed perfect to be the enemy of the good and if my colleagues in the majority rejected an amendment that did what they wanted while collecting the information that i think would be unassailable he helpful. I offer that a moment in good faith. I yield back. For what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition . Reserves. L lady i recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The amendment purports to after the banudy of no knock goes into effect, but after the ban goes into effect, theres nothing to study. I urge opposition to the amendment because the urgency of enacting the ban on no not on no knock contained in the bill is urgent to prevent further death. I yield to the gentlelady from texas. I yield back. Who seeks recognition . Gentleman from ohio. I would yield time to the gentleman. Thank you for yielding. The objections in my amendment is nonsense. The objections in my amendment is that we have to be in a rush. Ends no knock warrants in drug cases but just during the duration of a study so they can find out what is going on. Is it really true that my friends in the majority are not curious about the deployment of no knock warrants . The only other substantive point the chairman made in opposition to my amendment is there would be nothing to study because the no knock warrants will not be happening anymore. I know how bright my democratic colleagues are. I know that with all the no knock warrants that have already occurred with the deaths like Breonna Taylors death, we ought to get more information. If anything, it would inform our future policy choices. You are going to have to work with the senate, the administration and with some republicans. On this issue, i agree with the challenges of no knock warrants. If the only arguments is that ending no knock warrants are urgent and that the study is pernicious, you all know those arguments are being made. For the people watching at home, heres what is really going on, they want to end the hearing. There is out there is no other reason to not take this. I voted with you against some of my republican colleagues when i thought that we could come together. Why not take a republican amendment and work with us . I wish this were not the case, but i fear that the majority in this committee is so captive to the radical left and the people who really do want to defund the police. I take some of you at your word that you do not want to defund the police. But even if you do not want to defund the police, if you are so afraid of the elements of your party that do, that you are unwilling to accept any republican amendment, even an amendment that does what you want, while gathering information about the things that you care about, it shows what a farce this has been, and particularly in a hearing where our sincerity has been called into question, where our commitment to our own family members has been called into question. It really troubles me that you would be so close minded. You are not hurting us by doing this. You are hurting the next Breonna Taylor, the next person that could be negatively impacted, so please, i know you have rushed this bill, i know you do not want to have substantive discussions, you know you want to get it to the floor. But at least do not be opposed to the collection of information that might help us on future discussions that we could have on policing. Again, i would love to hear any substantive objections my amendment. You all know that the objections you heard from the chairman were nonsense. I dont think he even understands the amendment based on those objections. You just want to end today saying you took no republican amendments. That is what this is really about. And i am saddened by that because we have come here to Work Together. I yield back. Well said. I yield back. Chair nadler the gentleman year yields back. All in favor say aye. Oppose, no. No. The nos have it. I request to record a vote. We will call the roll. Mr. Nadler . Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Jackson lee . Ms. Jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen . Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutch votes no. Mr. Richmond . Mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Jeffrey . Mr. Cicilline . Mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Lou . Mr. Lou votes no. Mr. Raskin . Mr. Raskin votes no. Miss jayapal. Mr. Jayapal votes no. Miss demings . Missa demings votes no. Mr. Correa votes no. Ms. Scanlan votes no. Ms. Garcia votes no. Ms. Mcbeth votes no. Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Escobar votes no. Mr. Jordan . Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Chabot . Mr. Chabot votes aye. Mr. Colin votes aye. Mr. Buck votes aye. Miss robie votes aye. Mr. Gates votes aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Big . Mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Mr. Klein votes aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Chair nadler are there any other members who wish to vote . Mr. Chairman, how im my recorded . You are not recorded. He votes no. Miss dean, you are not recorded. Ms. Dean votes no. Miss beth votes no. Chair nadler any other members . Mr. Rosenthal are . You are not recorded. He votes aye. Chair nadler are there any other members . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman there are 12 ayes and 24 nos. Chair nadler the amendment is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments in the nature of the substantive . There any other amendments in the nature of the substantive . For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . The gentleman has an amendment on the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. The gentlelady reserves the order. Amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute for hr 7120 offered by mr. Klein of virginia. Page 97 after line seven insert the following. The gentleman is recognized for the purpose of explaining his amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I bring this amendment because i am tired of hardworking men and women in Law Enforcement getting a bad rap for the actions of one officer. Reputations drug through the mud, because one racist in their department. This amendment would go to two key points with a goal of transparency and accountability. I want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record, first titled a fired and rehired, Police Chiefs are often forced to put officers without fired back on the street. The second, Police Unions and police misconduct. What the Research Says about the connection, Washington Post, june 10, 2020. Without objection. Thank you. This would ensure that they are not hindered by Bargaining Agreements when working to resolve patterns of misconduct. Moreover, it would ensure important resources go to state and local Law Enforcement agencies that avoid these provisions occasionally found that avoid accountability. Provisions that would delay officer interviews or interrogations for a set period of time, anything that would provide officers with access prior to questioning, mandating the description of disciplinary records. Including statutes of limitation, bans on anonymous complaints, mandatory arbitration or discipline complaints. Madam chair, i would say that the vast majority of Law Enforcement officers serve with distinction and honor but in some states, bad officers have been shielded by collective Bargaining Agreements making it impossible to remove officers with extensive history of misconduct. We saw that most recently in the george floyd case. It leaves few options to hold bad actors accountable. They have been linked to an increase of violent Law Enforcement officers. One study found a 40 increase in violent incidents in florida after a change in collective bargaining laws there. In 2006, the bureau of justice statistics found that Law Enforcement agencies operating under a collective reckoning agreement garnered 9. 9 complaints for every officer. For every 100 officers. Process,e disciplinary only 7 of the complaints were sustained and found to have merit. Agencies without unions, the sustained rate was more than double at 15 . Currently, the attorney general has the authority to investigate and reform departments. Unfortunately, the department of justice is often unable to compel changes construed as altering collective Bargaining Agreements. We need to adopt policies to correct this problem and support the departments across the country that are making transparency and accountability a priority. Finally, by ensuring that police do not have their hands tied by Expensive Union contracts, Police Departments will be able to make decisions based on performance. It is my hope that by adopting this amendment, we can prevent future tragedies like the ones that took George Floyds life. I urge my colleagues to support this adoption to strengthen this bill and i yield back. Thank you. I recognize myself. I think we have a fundamental issue here. Because while private sector Union Bargaining rules are governed by federal laws, our Public Sector unions are under state jurisdiction. I think we have fundamental questions about what we can reach with this federal legislation. I would say that this does not actually affect those agreements at all, directly. All it does is say that eligibility for federal funding would depend on whether or not those agreements included egregious provision. I think we would all agree that being able to destroy disciplinary records is not what we want in local police policy. Mandatory arbitration of complaints is not something that we all want. In our local police policies. Bans on anonymous complaints . Statues of limitations . For the investigations and misconduct . Those are not policies that we want in our local police department, so lets use tools that we have. Ok. Reclaiming my time. I think the issue is whether we have these tools but whether it and whether or not it is too coercive. I would argue it is not. So noted. I do not think there is a rejection out of hand. I think there is the question of the format. I think the Committee Staff would like to look at this further. And move forward. That, i would yield back my time. Im sorry. Im enabled to withdraw my amendment at this point, but im happy to have the discussion right now. Manager . Who seeks recognition . I do over here, to your right. Can i offer a motion that says that we can put his amendment down and go on to some other amendments . And you can see if we can work something out. As i understand it, if he wants to withdraw it, he can withdraw. If he chooses not to, then we will proceed. Can you put it down a couple . Why not . This is the amendment under consideration. My understanding is that we cannot do that. Who seeks recognition . Gentleman from rhode island. Thank you. There is a lot of discussion that is occurring about selective Bargaining Agreement and whether there are agreements for reforming Police Departments. And whether or not some state statutes, the Law Enforcement bill of rights, who are enacted in a number of states are also an impediment. The flipside of that is that they can serve as a vehicle to real reform. I think the amendment raises important questions about some provisions of collective bargaining. As i said to my friend that collective Bargaining Agreements are an agreement between two parties. It is the agreement of the government agent, whether it is the mayor, the city council, the governor officials who have agreed to those provisions. I think the amendment raises and calls to question about whether or not those who are responsible for making those judgments and collective agreements should consider a range of different approaches, in light of recent events that we have seen in our country. I do think the danger of intruding upon such a sacred responsibility between the employer and employee to negotiate in good faith. And that is a contract that has obligations on both sides. I am fearful of the government coming and inserting itself into collective bargaining proceedings. It will have a very damaging and negative impact on the ability of workers to negotiate wages and benefits and working conditions consistent with their best interest. I think what the amendment really points to is that we need to call upon folks on the other side of the negotiating table to be sure they are fighting for contracts that provide the right benefits, wages and protections, but also protect the ability of the municipality or state or local government to hold Police Officers accountable to properly discipline them and state legislatures to look at statutes that might impede that. It seems that is the right approach rather than going behind the collective Bargaining Agreement and undermine what is so important. I frankly do not know whether we have the ability, legally to intrude upon what is essentially a contract between employers and employees. I think the amendment raises important questions. A lot of those conversations are happening in states and cities all around the country, but sensitizing people to negotiating contracts that achieve both objectives, providing wages and benefits and safe working conditions for officers, but also ensuring that municipalities and state governments have the ability to hold Police Officers accountable and properly discipline officers who require discipline. And some of the other issues raised in the amendment is important. I thank the gentleman for raising this issue. On balance, protecting the protective Bargaining Agreement is important. But Holding People accountable for those agreements. I will take a moment. Thank you very much, mr. Cicilline and mr. Klein. My friend and colleague decided not to withdraw. But i think there is a key to the issue of two parties negotiating an agreement. We leap into it from the federal government and in essence, i would not say untangle it but to take the legs off of it. I think that is troubling to me. In addition, we are trying to be transformational. Part of the work were are doing in this bill is to give local governments the ability to be able to work with our Law Enforcement to be transformational. Your issue might be one that they consider. I would be hesitant to interfere with the collecting collective bargaining process. With that, i yield back. I think the gentlelady for her comments. I thank the gentleman from rhode island as well. I would respond by saying that in many ways, this bill does just that, inserting the federal government into what is often a local or because one of the parties is the state or local government which you have as a proper role in using federal funds to encourage certain behaviors or certain agreements. A backboneally gave to those local officials who you would like to see take a firmer stand and get more successful collective Bargaining Agreements as a result and not have these offensive provisions in them. Than encouragement rather requirement. It is not coercion, it is simply using the tools we have to achieve a result. I yield back. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition . Thank you, madam chair. So recognized. Thank you. This is interesting. What was really said about this bill is that yes, we understand the problems with the collective Bargaining Agreement that keeps us from getting into the problem and making change, studying what happened in a Law Enforcement to situation. But it is very interesting to hear the mental gymnastics that i just heard to say that there are certain areas that we should not touch. That is what we do all the time. We wanted people to wear seatbelts and what did we do . We withheld money in states and localities. We wanted people to do other things. We say you cant have it. This is exactly what is happening. The problem is, we have a will a bill, we talked about no knock warrant. The issue of chokeholds, other issues. We are asserting ourselves, even in this bill. I understand this is a difficult situation because it puts us at odds with two power bases. One being a union connective Bargaining Agreement that we dont want to get in the middle of. But also say we have to look at these collective Bargaining Agreements. They are the issue that causes us to have issues and prosecutions of folks should not have done bad things. If the concern is putting us in a bad spot, we need to be we need to reexamine how we do everything in washington. I do not want to see another Clean Air Act or a transportation bill. I dont wait anything you want to put in there that coerces states or tells states how they have to do something without being involved in saying dont worry, you dont have to do it, but you are not getting the money. To say this is a problem here, to say one of the things that we have to understand is that Police Officers who are or are not under the collective Bargaining Agreements, they do not like the way this is set up. We see the problems that has been affected here. I understand it puts many in a bad position because you do not want to go into the collective Bargaining Agreement. When is that ever a concern when we passed health care . Choiceced you to make a in a private agreement of insurance. That you have to buy it. There are other issues that we could go on and on and talk about. But to say that the federal government should get involved in everything else, but be very careful about wanting a collective Bargaining Agreement. Even if the collective Bargaining Agreement by itself. One of the things that i am appreciative, there needs to be better agreements. Until there is a force put on these agreements, you are not going to see them get better. The unions do what they need to do, rightfully so. Im not taking away from what they do. That is why they are there. To get as much as they can for the people they recognize they represent. When you have issues like we are dealing with right now, if we want to talk transformational change, if we really want to do that, and i know that you do, i do. This is where we have to look at. These parameters have to be set. Ith that, i want to say look, know this may be sticky, but it is actually going to the very heart of the issue. Yield. T, i i thank the gentleman. As i said, this is a National Problem that the Washington Post article that i included in the 62017said between 2000 in washington, d. C. , 45 percent of the officers fired for misconduct were rehired on appeal. In the fidel of the in philadelphia, they share is 62 . 70 of officers fired were rehired on appeal. That is an issue. We need to make sure that the bad apples are thrown out and kept out. With that, i yield back. I reclaim my time. Lets think about this. Go back to george floyd. The officer who killed george floyd had 18 reprimands that were never punished. These are things that are covered and left out of collective Bargaining Agreements. When they do get rehired, they go through the process. Or basically they have to wait. There are a waiting periods or they have to see the information. Things that normal defendants are never allowed to be a part of our bound into these collective Bargaining Agreements. I think it is a great discussion for us to have. I appreciate him bringing that. Lets not kid ourselves. The federal Government Forces citizens every day up here. This is what this is about. I yield back. Who seeks recognition . For what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition . The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, madam chair. With all of the jargon and technical debate on the subject, it is easy to see what is going on. This amendment tests whether or not black lives matter to the majority as much as their fidelity to organize labor does. Everybody on this committee and most people in america know that there are circumstances where Police Unions protect bad cops and while we certainly have to have unions and reckoning collective Bargaining Agreements good enough and Strong Enough to protect good cops and whistleblowers that might see improper behavior, we do not want unions so strong. That bad cops can be shuttled around. But organized labor donates disproportionately to democrats. My friend from rhode island said earlier this must be a very difficult and hard conversation about policing for republicans, but we have seen that it is difficult for the democrats. And that is any sort of treatment of the sacred cow that is the union world. Mr. Klein does not seek to end collective bargaining or make it more difficult for those seeking protections of those agreement, agreements, when they are doing the right thing and serving as exemplary examples of good policing. Where you see folks deviate, you see these clear examples where we as the government could do something to inform on the substance of these agreements, they dont want to do anything. By the way, this whole notion of, this is too much interference of local affairs, they want to take over the training of local police and have it dictated from the federal government. There might be reasons why we could create a platform, but do not tell me that the majority that wants to have the federal Government Train the police is too concerned about appearance interference in local affairs to say that there are some features of collective reckoning Bargaining Agreements that are contrary to Public Policy that only protect bad. I appreciate the gentlemans amendment. Again, this is an example of the black lives matter mantra serving more as a slogan then as a organizing policy principle. America should resent that because we have mechanisms in place to go after the bad cops and protect the good cops. But this is all about organized labor. And the funny thing is we all know it. Everybody can talk about the feature of these agreements. Everybody knows that they have tools to protect bad cops. Instead of protecting citizen, the citizens, instead of protecting the George Floyds and the Breonna Taylors, they are protecting their own relationships with organized unions. Just say what it is. It is well drafted and well tailored. You all should accepted. As i said previously, the last two amendments offered are amendment that do what you want to do. Perhaps if it were offered by democrats, he would take it, but she would have taken them, but you came in, the majority did, absolutely hellbent not to take any amendments from republicans. As we venture on in the six and, on in this experience, i think the American People should know that to get this done, we need to Work Together. These are the ideas that would allow us to. Gathering more data, getting rid of bad cops and ensuring we have the right tools for policing. The American People are probably sick of watching this debate because there is so much that we agree on, yet just out of political tribalism, you are unwilling to accept amendments. And it is disingenuous and unfortunate. I yield to the gentleman from virginia if you have additional comments. I thanked the gentleman. I think that the data has been collected on this issue in many different studies. It has shown that once unionized, Police Forces are more likely to keep bad apples or bad actors on their force. A study showed that a number of provisions listed in the amendment played a role in shielding officers from the consequences of misconduct. Around 80 88 contained one provision that could thwart disciplinary actions. This is designed to target data target those bad apples, make sure they are gotten rid of and do not come back, making sure that we go to the heart of what this bill should be about, transparency and accountability. I yield back. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek ignition . Thank you, madam chair. Journal,wall street the problem with Police Unions, it protects too many bad cops from discipline. Without objection. Who seeks recognition . The question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Have may iy ask for a recorded count. The nos have it. A recorded vote is called. Ms. Jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutch votes no. Mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Jeffrey . Mr. Cicilline votes no. Mr. Lou . Mr. Lou votes no. Mr. Raskin . Mr. Raskin votes no. Miss demings . Miss demings about snow. Mr. Correa . Ms. Scanlan . Ms. Scanlan votes no. Ms. Garcia . Ms. Garcia votes no. Mr. Negus . Mr. Negus votes no. Ms. Mcbeth . Ms. Mcbeth votes no. Mr. Stanton . Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Dean . Ms. Dean votes no. Ms. Escobar . Ms. Escobar votes no. Mr. Jordan . Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Sensenbrenner . Mr. Chabot votes aye. Mr. Gomer . Mr. Colin votes aye. Mr. Buck . Mr. Buck votes aye. Mr. Gate . Mr. Gate votes aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Biggs . Mr. Mcclintock . Mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Ms. Lesko . Ms. Lesko votes aye. Mr. Klein . Mr. Klein votes aye. Mr. Armstrong . Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Steube . Mr. Steube votes yes. Mr. Nadler . Mr. Nadler votes no. Are there any members who wish to have their vote recorded that did not . Mr. Correa, you are not recorded. Mr. Correa votes no. Are there any other member should their vote recorded . Ok. The clerk will report the vote. Record the vote. Madam chair, their are 12 there are 12 ayes and 23 nos. The amendment fails. It is not adopted. And we have to take a very brief pause to fix our technical equipment. It is tired, if nobody elses. The committee will stand on recess for a couple of minutes. Thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] announcer the site return monday the Senate Returns money to continue debate on mississippi cory wilson to be a u. S. Court of appeals judge. The vote to advance the nomination takes place at 5 30. Debate and votes are possible on the Police Reform legislation, introduced by South Carolina republican senator tim scott. You can follow the senate live on cspan 2. House returns for legislative work thursday at 9 00 a. M. Eastern. A busy thursday and friday as they take up their release there Police Reform bill as proxy voting rules are in effect due to the coronavirus. Also on the agenda, washington, d. C. Statehood, an attempt to override president trumps veto over resolutions that would brought block the Education Department student loan forgiveness rule. You can follow the house live on cspan. Announcer the house education and Labor Committee holds a hearing monday to discuss the Coronavirus Response and racial inequities in education, health care and the workforce. Live coverage begins at noon eastern on cspan, online at cspan. Org, or listen live on the free cspan radio app. What we see with king, the revolutionary king, he starts talking about using nonviolence as early as 1955 after the los angeles rebellion of 1955, to paralyze cities to leverage nonviolent civil disobedience to transform american democracy. Malcolm x had called for the same thing at the march on washington, which malcolm criticized as a march on washington because he wanted a display of civil disobedience that was going to be muscular enough to end the racial status quo in the United States of america. Announcer university of texas pineal joseph on his book the sword and the shield about the activism and converging debt ideologies on malcolm x on Martin Luther king jr. And the importance of their thinking on the fight for civil rights in america. Q a tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Announcer next, the Poor Peoples Campaign hosts a nationwide virtual rally to protest racism, poverty, and inequality in america. The keynote address was given by reverend william barber, cochair of the campaign. This is three hours and 20 minutes. Kit has always taken a moral movement to change america it has always taken a moral movement to change america. People of all races and