“GEORGE FLOYD JUSTICE IN POLICING ACT OF 2021.....” published by Congressional Record in the House of Representatives section on March 3, 2021

By Rome Reporter

Mar 3, 2021

Marjorie Taylor Greene was mentioned in GEORGE FLOYD JUSTICE IN POLICING ACT OF 2021..... on pages H1039-H1071 covering the 1st Session of the 117th Congress published on March 3, 2021 in the Congressional Record.

The publication is reproduced in full below:

GEORGE FLOYD JUSTICE IN POLICING ACT OF 2021

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 179, I call up the bill (H.R. 1280) to hold law enforcement accountable for misconduct in court, improve transparency through data collection, and reform police training and policies, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the bill is considered read.

The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 1280

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021''.

(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Definitions.

TITLE I--POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY

Subtitle A--Holding Police Accountable in the Courts

Sec. 101. Deprivation of rights under color of law.

Sec. 102. Qualified immunity reform.

Sec. 103. Pattern and practice investigations.

Sec. 104. Independent investigations.

Subtitle B--Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act

Sec. 111. Short title.

Sec. 112. Definitions.

Sec. 113. Accreditation of law enforcement agencies.

Sec. 114. Law enforcement grants.

Sec. 115. Attorney General to conduct study.

Sec. 116. Authorization of appropriations.

Sec. 117. National task force on law enforcement oversight.

Sec. 118. Federal data collection on law enforcement practices.

TITLE II--POLICING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH DATA

Subtitle A--National Police Misconduct Registry

Sec. 201. Establishment of National Police Misconduct Registry.

Sec. 202. Certification requirements for hiring of law enforcement officers.

Subtitle B--PRIDE Act

Sec. 221. Short title.

Sec. 222. Definitions.

Sec. 223. Use of force reporting.

Sec. 224. Use of force data reporting.

Sec. 225. Compliance with reporting requirements.

Sec. 226. Federal law enforcement reporting.

Sec. 227. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE III--IMPROVING POLICE TRAINING AND POLICIES

Subtitle A--End Racial and Religious Profiling Act

Sec. 301. Short title.

Sec. 302. Definitions.

Part I--Prohibition of Racial Profiling

Sec. 311. Prohibition.

Sec. 312. Enforcement.

Part II--Programs To Eliminate Racial Profiling By Federal Law

Enforcement Agencies

Sec. 321. Policies to eliminate racial profiling.

Part III--Programs To Eliminate Racial Profiling By State and Local Law

Enforcement Agencies

Sec. 331. Policies required for grants.

Sec. 332. Involvement of Attorney General.

Sec. 333. Data collection demonstration project.

Sec. 334. Development of best practices.

Sec. 335. Authorization of appropriations.

Part IV--Data Collection

Sec. 341. Attorney General to issue regulations.

Sec. 342. Publication of data.

Sec. 343. Limitations on publication of data.

Part V--Department of Justice Regulations and Reports on Racial

Profiling in the United States

Sec. 351. Attorney General to issue regulations and reports.

Subtitle B--Additional Reforms

Sec. 361. Training on racial bias and duty to intervene.

Sec. 362. Ban on no-knock warrants in drug cases.

Sec. 363. Incentivizing banning of chokeholds and carotid holds.

Sec. 364. PEACE Act.

Sec. 365. Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act.

Sec. 366. Public safety innovation grants.

Subtitle C--Law Enforcement Body Cameras

Part 1--Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act

Sec. 371. Short title.

Sec. 372. Requirements for Federal law enforcement officers regarding the use of body cameras.

Sec. 373. Patrol vehicles with in-car video recording cameras.

Sec. 374. Facial recognition technology.

Sec. 375. GAO study.

Sec. 376. Regulations.

Sec. 377. Rule of construction.

Part 2--Police CAMERA Act

Sec. 381. Short title.

Sec. 382. Law enforcement body-worn camera requirements.

TITLE IV--CLOSING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSENT LOOPHOLE

Sec. 401. Short title.

Sec. 402. Prohibition on engaging in sexual acts while acting under color of law.

Sec. 403. Enactment of laws penalizing engaging in sexual acts while acting under color of law.

Sec. 404. Reports to Congress.

Sec. 405. Definition.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Severability.

Sec. 502. Savings clause.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) Byrne grant program.--The term ``Byrne grant program'' means any grant program under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151 et seq.), without regard to whether the funds are characterized as being made available under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or otherwise.

(2) COPS grant program.--The term ``COPS grant program'' means the grant program authorized under section 1701 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381).

(3) Federal law enforcement agency.--The term ``Federal law enforcement agency'' means any agency of the United States authorized to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of Federal criminal law.

(4) Federal law enforcement officer.--The term ``Federal law enforcement officer'' has the meaning given the term in section 115 of title 18, United States Code.

(5) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the meaning given the term ``Indian tribe'' in section 901 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).

(6) Local law enforcement officer.--The term ``local law enforcement officer'' means any officer, agent, or employee of a State or unit of local government authorized by law or by a government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of criminal law.

(7) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the term in section 901 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).

(8) Tribal law enforcement officer.--The term ``tribal law enforcement officer'' means any officer, agent, or employee of an Indian tribe, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, authorized by law or by a government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of criminal law.

(9) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local government'' has the meaning given the term in section 901 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).

(10) Deadly force.--The term ``deadly force'' means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, including--

(A) the discharge of a firearm;

(B) a maneuver that restricts blood or oxygen flow to the brain, including chokeholds, strangleholds, neck restraints, neckholds, and carotid artery restraints; and

(11) Use of force.--The term ``use of force'' includes--

(A) the use of a firearm, electronic control weapon, explosive device, chemical agent (such as pepper spray), baton, impact projectile, blunt instrument, hand, fist, foot, canine, or vehicle against an individual;

(B) the use of a weapon, including a personal body weapon, chemical agent, impact weapon, extended range impact weapon, sonic weapon, sensory weapon, conducted energy device, or firearm, against an individual; or

(12) Less lethal force.--The term ``less lethal force'' means any degree of force that is not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.

(13) Facial recognition.--The term ``facial recognition'' means an automated or semiautomated process that analyzes biometric data of an individual from video footage to identify or assist in identifying an individual.

TITLE I--POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY

Subtitle A--Holding Police Accountable in the Courts

SEC. 101. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking ``willfully'' and inserting ``knowingly or recklessly'';

(2) by striking ``, or may be sentenced to death''; and

(3) by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of this section, an act shall be considered to have resulted in death if the act was a substantial factor contributing to the death of the person.''.

SEC. 102. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY REFORM.

Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States

(42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``It shall not be a defense or immunity in any action brought under this section against a local law enforcement officer (as such term is defined in section 2 of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021), or in any action under any source of law against a Federal investigative or law enforcement officer (as such term is defined in section 2680(h) of title 28, United States Code), that--

``(1) the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when the conduct was committed; or

``(2) the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws were not clearly established at the time of their deprivation by the defendant, or that at such time, the state of the law was otherwise such that the defendant could not reasonably have been expected to know whether his or her conduct was lawful.''.

SEC. 103. PATTERN AND PRACTICE INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) Subpoena Authority.--Section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12601) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, by prosecutors,'' after ``conduct by law enforcement officers'';

(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

``(c) Subpoena Authority.--In carrying out the authority in subsection (b), the Attorney General may require by subpoena the production of all information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data in any medium (including electronically stored information), as well as any tangible thing and documentary evidence, and the attendance and testimony of witnesses necessary in the performance of the Attorney General under subsection (b). Such a subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by order of any appropriate district court of the United States.

``(d) Civil Action by State Attorneys General.--Whenever it shall appear to the attorney general of any State, or such other official as a State may designate, that a violation of subsection (a) has occurred within their State, the State attorney general or official, in the name of the State, may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice. In carrying out the authority in this subsection, the State attorney general or official shall have the same subpoena authority as is available to the Attorney General under subsection (c).

``(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the Attorney General under subsection (b) in any case in which a State attorney general has brought a civil action under subsection (d).

``(f) Reporting Requirements.--On the date that is one year after the enactment of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, and annually thereafter, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice shall make publicly available on an internet website a report on, during the previous year--

``(1) the number of preliminary investigations of violations of subsection (a) that were commenced;

``(2) the number of preliminary investigations of violations of subsection (a) that were resolved; and

``(3) the status of any pending investigations of violations of subsection (a).''.

(b) Grant Program.--

(1) Grants authorized.--The Attorney General may award a grant to a State to assist the State in conducting pattern and practice investigations under section 210401(d) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12601).

(2) Application.--A State seeking a grant under paragraph

(1) shall submit an application in such form, at such time, and containing such information as the Attorney General may require.

(3) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated

$100,000,000 to the Attorney General for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2024 to carry out this subsection.

(c) Data on Excessive Use of Force.--Section 210402 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12602) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking ``The Attorney General'' and inserting the following:

``(1) Federal collection of data.--The Attorney General''; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

``(2) State collection of data.--The attorney general of a State may, through appropriate means, acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers and such data may be used by the attorney general in conducting investigations under section 210401. This data may not contain any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or any law enforcement officer.''; and

(2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:

``(b) Limitation on Use of Data Acquired by the Attorney General.--Data acquired under subsection (a)(1) shall be used only for research or statistical purposes and may not contain any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or any law enforcement officer.''.

(d) Enforcement of Pattern or Practice Relief.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of local government that receives funds under the Byrne grant program or the COPS grant program during a fiscal year may not make available any amount of such funds to a local law enforcement agency if that local law enforcement agency enters into or renews any contractual arrangement, including a collective bargaining agreement with a labor organization, that--

(1) would prevent the Attorney General from seeking or enforcing equitable or declaratory relief against a law enforcement agency engaging in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional misconduct; or

(2) conflicts with any terms or conditions contained in a consent decree.

SEC. 104. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) In General.--

(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:

(A) Independent investigation.--The term ``independent investigation'' means a criminal investigation or prosecution of a law enforcement officer's use of deadly force, including one or more of the following:

(i) Using an agency or civilian review board that investigates and independently reviews all allegations of use of deadly force made against law enforcement officers in the jurisdiction.

(ii) Assigning of the attorney general of the State in which the alleged use of deadly force was committed to conduct the criminal investigation and prosecution.

(iii) Adopting a procedure under which an independent prosecutor is assigned to investigate and prosecute the case, including a procedure under which an automatic referral is made to an independent prosecutor appointed and overseen by the attorney general of the State in which the alleged use of deadly force was committed.

(iv) Adopting a procedure under which an independent prosecutor is assigned to investigate and prosecute the case.

(v) Having law enforcement agencies agree to and implement memoranda of understanding with other law enforcement agencies under which the other law enforcement agencies--

(I) shall conduct the criminal investigation into the alleged use of deadly force; and

(II) upon conclusion of the criminal investigation, shall file a report with the attorney general of the State containing a determination regarding whether--

(aa) the use of deadly force was appropriate; and

(bb) any action should be taken by the attorney general of the State.

(vi) Any substantially similar procedure to ensure impartiality in the investigation or prosecution.

(B) Independent investigation of law enforcement statute.-- The term ``independent investigation of law enforcement statute'' means a statute requiring an independent investigation in a criminal matter in which--

(i) one or more of the possible defendants is a law enforcement officer;

(ii) one or more of the alleged offenses involves the law enforcement officer's use of deadly force in the course of carrying out that officer's duty; and

(iii) the non-Federal law enforcement officer's use of deadly force resulted in a death or injury.

(C) Independent prosecutor.--The term ``independent prosecutor'' means, with respect to a criminal investigation or prosecution of a law enforcement officer's use of deadly force, a prosecutor who--

(i) does not oversee or regularly rely on the law enforcement agency by which the law enforcement officer under investigation is employed; and

(ii) would not be involved in the prosecution in the ordinary course of that prosecutor's duties.

(2) Grant program.--The Attorney General may award grants to eligible States and Indian Tribes to assist in implementing an independent investigation of law enforcement statute.

(3) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this subsection, a State or Indian Tribe shall have in effect an independent investigation of law enforcement statute.

(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General $750,000,000 for fiscal years 2022 through 2024 to carry out this subsection.

(b) COPS Grant Program Used for Civilian Review Boards.-- Part Q of title I of the of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381 et seq.) is amended--

(1) in section 1701(b) (34 U.S.C. 10381(b))--

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (22) and (23) as paragraphs

(23) and (24), respectively;

(B) in paragraph (23), as so redesignated, by striking

``(21)'' and inserting ``(22)''; and

``(22) to develop best practices for and to create civilian review boards;''; and

(2) in section 1709 (34 U.S.C. 10389), by adding at the end the following:

``(8) `civilian review board' means an administrative entity that investigates civilian complaints against law enforcement officers and--

``(A) is independent and adequately funded;

``(B) has investigatory authority and subpoena power;

``(C) has representative community diversity;

``(D) has policy making authority;

``(E) provides advocates for civilian complainants;

``(F) may conduct hearings; and

``(G) conducts statistical studies on prevailing complaint trends.''.

Subtitle B--Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act

SEC. 111. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2021''.

SEC. 112. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:

(1) Community-based organization.--The term ``community- based organization'' means a grassroots organization that monitors the issue of police misconduct and that has a local or national presence and membership, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), UnidosUS, the National Urban League, the National Congress of American Indians, or the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (NAPALC).

(2) Law enforcement accreditation organization.--The term

``law enforcement accreditation organization'' means a professional law enforcement organization involved in the development of standards of accreditation for law enforcement agencies at the national, State, regional, or Tribal level, such as the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA).

(3) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement agency'' means a State, local, Indian tribal, or campus public agency engaged in the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, or adjudication of violations of criminal laws.

(4) Professional law enforcement association.--The term

``professional law enforcement association'' means a law enforcement membership association that works for the needs of Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal law enforcement agencies and with the civilian community on matters of common interest, such as the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association (HAPCOA), the National Asian Pacific Officers Association (NAPOA), the National Black Police Association (NBPA), the National Latino Peace Officers Association (NLPOA), the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), Women in Law Enforcement, the Native American Law Enforcement Association (NALEA), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA), the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), or the National Association of School Resource Officers.

(5) Professional civilian oversight organization.--The term

``professional civilian oversight organization'' means a membership organization formed to address and advance civilian oversight of law enforcement and whose members are from Federal, State, regional, local, or Tribal organizations that review issues or complaints against law enforcement agencies or officers, such as the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE).

SEC. 113. ACCREDITATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

(a) Standards.--

(1) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform an initial analysis of existing accreditation standards and methodology developed by law enforcement accreditation organizations nationwide, including national, State, regional, and Tribal accreditation organizations. Such an analysis shall include a review of the recommendations of the Final Report of the President's Taskforce on 21st Century Policing, issued by the Department of Justice, in May 2015.

(2) Development of uniform standards.--After completion of the initial review and analysis under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall--

(A) recommend, in consultation with law enforcement accreditation organizations and community-based organizations, the adoption of additional standards that will result in greater community accountability of law enforcement agencies and an increased focus on policing with a guardian mentality, including standards relating to--

(i) early warning systems and related intervention programs;

(ii) use of force procedures;

(iii) civilian review procedures;

(iv) traffic and pedestrian stop and search procedures;

(v) data collection and transparency;

(vi) administrative due process requirements;

(vii) video monitoring technology;

(viii) youth justice and school safety; and

(ix) recruitment, hiring, and training; and

(B) recommend additional areas for the development of national standards for the accreditation of law enforcement agencies in consultation with existing law enforcement accreditation organizations, professional law enforcement associations, labor organizations, community-based organizations, and professional civilian oversight organizations.

(3) Continuing accreditation process.--The Attorney General shall adopt policies and procedures to partner with law enforcement accreditation organizations, professional law enforcement associations, labor organizations, community- based organizations, and professional civilian oversight organizations to--

(A) continue the development of further accreditation standards consistent with paragraph (2); and

(B) encourage the pursuit of accreditation of Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies by certified law enforcement accreditation organizations.

(b) Use of Funds Requirements.--Section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(7) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an application, the applicant will use not less than 5 percent of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to assist law enforcement agencies of the applicant, including campus public safety departments, gain or maintain accreditation from certified law enforcement accreditation organizations in accordance with section 113 of the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2021.''.

(c) Eligibility for Certain Grant Funds.--The Attorney General shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, allocate Department of Justice discretionary grant funding only to States or units of local government that require law enforcement agencies of that State or unit of local government to gain and maintain accreditation from certified law enforcement accreditation organizations in accordance with this section.

SEC. 114. LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS.

(a) Use of Funds Requirement.--Section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153(a)), as amended by section 113, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(8) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an application, the applicant will use not less than 5 percent of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to study and implement effective management, training, recruiting, hiring, and oversight standards and programs to promote effective community and problem solving strategies for law enforcement agencies in accordance with section 114 of the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2021.''.

(b) Grant Program for Community Organizations.--The Attorney General may make grants to community-based organizations to study and implement--

(1) effective management, training, recruiting, hiring, and oversight standards and programs to promote effective community and problem solving strategies for law enforcement agencies; or

(2) effective strategies and solutions to public safety, including strategies that do not rely on Federal and local law enforcement agency responses.

(c) Use of Funds.--Grant amounts described in paragraph (8) of section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153(a)), as added by subsection (a) of this section, and grant amounts awarded under subsection (b) shall be used to--

(1) study management and operations standards for law enforcement agencies, including standards relating to administrative due process, residency requirements, compensation and benefits, use of force, racial profiling, early warning and intervention systems, youth justice, school safety, civilian review boards or analogous procedures, or research into the effectiveness of existing programs, projects, or other activities designed to address misconduct; and

(2) develop pilot programs and implement effective standards and programs in the areas of training, hiring and recruitment, and oversight that are designed to improve management and address misconduct by law enforcement officers.

(d) Components of Pilot Program.--A pilot program developed under subsection (c)(2) shall include implementation of the following:

(1) Training.--The implementation of policies, practices, and procedures addressing training and instruction to comply with accreditation standards in the areas of--

(A) the use of deadly force, less lethal force, and de- escalation tactics and techniques;

(B) investigation of officer misconduct and practices and procedures for referring to prosecuting authorities allegations of officer use of excessive force or racial profiling;

(D) tactical and defensive strategy;

(E) arrests, searches, and restraint;

(F) professional verbal communications with civilians;

(G) interactions with--

(i) youth;

(ii) individuals with disabilities;

(iii) individuals with limited English proficiency; and

(iv) multi-cultural communities;

(H) proper traffic, pedestrian, and other enforcement stops; and

(I) community relations and bias awareness.

(2) Recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion of diverse law enforcement officers.--Policies, procedures, and practices for--

(A) the hiring and recruitment of diverse law enforcement officers who are representative of the communities they serve;

(B) the development of selection, promotion, educational, background, and psychological standards that comport with title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.); and

(C) initiatives to encourage residency in the jurisdiction served by the law enforcement agency and continuing education.

(3) Oversight.--Complaint procedures, including the establishment of civilian review boards or analogous procedures for jurisdictions across a range of sizes and agency configurations, complaint procedures by community- based organizations, early warning systems and related intervention programs, video monitoring technology, data collection and transparency, and administrative due process requirements inherent to complaint procedures for members of the public and law enforcement.

(4) Youth justice and school safety.--Uniform standards on youth justice and school safety that include best practices for law enforcement interaction and communication with children and youth, taking into consideration adolescent development and any disability, including--

(A) the right to effective and timely notification of a parent or legal guardian of any law enforcement interaction, regardless of the immigration status of the individuals involved; and

(B) the creation of positive school climates by improving school conditions for learning by--

(i) eliminating school-based arrests and referrals to law enforcement;

(ii) using evidence-based preventative measures and alternatives to school-based arrests and referrals to law enforcement, such as restorative justice and healing practices; and

(iii) using school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports.

(5) Victim services.--Counseling services, including psychological counseling, for individuals and communities impacted by law enforcement misconduct.

(e) Technical Assistance.--

(1) In general.--The Attorney General may provide technical assistance to States and community-based organizations in furtherance of the purposes of this section.

(2) Models for reduction of law enforcement misconduct.-- The technical assistance provided by the Attorney General may include the development of models for States and community- based organizations to reduce law enforcement officer misconduct. Any development of such models shall be in consultation with community-based organizations.

(f) Use of Components.--The Attorney General may use any component or components of the Department of Justice in carrying out this section.

(g) Applications.--An application for a grant under subsection (b) shall be submitted in such form, and contain such information, as the Attorney General may prescribe by rule.

(h) Performance Evaluation.--

(1) Monitoring components.--

(A) In general.--Each program, project, or activity funded under this section shall contain a monitoring component, which shall be developed pursuant to rules made by the Attorney General.

(B) Requirement.--Each monitoring component required under subparagraph (A) shall include systematic identification and collection of data about activities, accomplishments, and programs throughout the duration of the program, project, or activity and presentation of such data in a usable form.

(2) Evaluation components.--

(A) In general.--Selected grant recipients shall be evaluated on the local level or as part of a national evaluation, pursuant to rules made by the Attorney General.

(B) Requirements.--An evaluation conducted under subparagraph (A) may include independent audits of police behavior and other assessments of individual program implementations. For community-based organizations in selected jurisdictions that are able to support outcome evaluations, the effectiveness of funded programs, projects, and activities may be required.

(3) Periodic review and reports.--The Attorney General may require a grant recipient to submit biannually to the Attorney General the results of the monitoring and evaluations required under paragraphs (1) and (2) and such other data and information as the Attorney General determines to be necessary.

(i) Revocation or Suspension of Funding.--If the Attorney General determines, as a result of monitoring under subsection (h) or otherwise, that a grant recipient under the Byrne grant program or under subsection (b) is not in substantial compliance with the requirements of this section, the Attorney General may revoke or suspend funding of that grant, in whole or in part.

(j) Civilian Review Board Defined.--In this section, the term ``civilian review board'' means an administrative entity that investigates civilian complaints against law enforcement officers and--

(1) is independent and adequately funded;

(2) has investigatory authority and subpoena power;

(3) has representative community diversity;

(4) has policy making authority;

(5) provides advocates for civilian complainants;

(6) may conduct hearings; and

(7) conducts statistical studies on prevailing complaint trends.

(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2022 to carry out the grant program authorized under subsection (b).

SEC. 115. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT STUDY.

(a) Study.--

(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall conduct a nationwide study of the prevalence and effect of any law, rule, or procedure that allows a law enforcement officer to delay the response to questions posed by a local internal affairs officer, or review board on the investigative integrity and prosecution of law enforcement misconduct, including pre-interview warnings and termination policies.

(2) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform an initial analysis of existing State laws, rules, and procedures to determine whether, at a threshold level, the effect of the type of law, rule, or procedure that raises material investigatory issues that could impair or hinder a prompt and thorough investigation of possible misconduct, including criminal conduct.

(3) Data collection.--After completion of the initial analysis under paragraph (2), and considering material investigatory issues, the Attorney General shall gather additional data nationwide on similar laws, rules, and procedures from a representative and statistically significant sample of jurisdictions, to determine whether such laws, rules, and procedures raise such material investigatory issues.

(b) Reporting.--

(1) Initial analysis.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall--

(A) submit to Congress a report containing the results of the initial analysis conducted under subsection (a)(2);

(B) make the report submitted under subparagraph (A) available to the public; and

(2) Data collected.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of the data collected under this section and publish the report in the Federal Register.

SEC. 116. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2022, in addition to any other sums authorized to be appropriated--

(1) $25,000,000 for additional expenses relating to the enforcement of section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12601), criminal enforcement under sections 241 and 242 of title 18, United States Code, and administrative enforcement by the Department of Justice of such sections, including compliance with consent decrees or judgments entered into under such section 210401; and

(2) $3,300,000 for additional expenses related to conflict resolution by the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service.

SEC. 117. NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OVERSIGHT.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the Department of Justice a task force to be known as the Task Force on Law Enforcement Oversight (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Task Force'').

(b) Composition.--The Task Force shall be composed of individuals appointed by the Attorney General, who shall appoint not less than 1 individual from each of the following:

(1) The Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division.

(2) The Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division.

(3) The Federal Coordination and Compliance Section of the Civil Rights Division.

(4) The Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division.

(5) The Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division.

(6) The Office of Justice Programs.

(7) The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

(COPS).

(8) The Corruption/Civil Rights Section of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(9) The Community Relations Service.

(10) The Office of Tribal Justice.

(11) The unit within the Department of Justice assigned as a liaison for civilian review boards.

(c) Powers and Duties.--The Task Force shall consult with professional law enforcement associations, labor organizations, and community-based organizations to coordinate the process of the detection and referral of complaints regarding incidents of alleged law enforcement misconduct.

(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each fiscal year to carry out this section.

SEC. 118. FEDERAL DATA COLLECTION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT

PRACTICES.

(a) Agencies To Report.--Each Federal, State, Tribal, and local law enforcement agency shall report data of the practices enumerated in subsection (c) of that agency to the Attorney General.

(b) Breakdown of Information by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender.--For each practice enumerated in subsection (c), the reporting law enforcement agency shall provide a breakdown of the numbers of incidents of that practice by race, ethnicity, age, and gender of the officers of the agency and of members of the public involved in the practice.

(1) Traffic violation stops.

(2) Pedestrian stops.

(3) Frisk and body searches.

(4) Instances where law enforcement officers used deadly force, including--

(A) a description of when and where deadly force was used, and whether it resulted in death;

(B) a description of deadly force directed against an officer and whether it resulted in injury or death; and

(d) Retention of Data.--Each law enforcement agency required to report data under this section shall maintain records relating to any matter reported for not less than 4 years after those records are created.

(e) Penalty for States Failing To Report as Required.--

(1) In general.--For any fiscal year, a State shall not receive any amount that would otherwise be allocated to that State under section 505(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10156(a)), or any amount from any other law enforcement assistance program of the Department of Justice, unless the State has ensured, to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the State and each local law enforcement agency of the State is in substantial compliance with the requirements of this section.

(2) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated by reason of this subsection shall be reallocated to States not disqualified by failure to comply with this section.

(f) Regulations.--The Attorney General shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section.

TITLE II--POLICING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH DATA

Subtitle A--National Police Misconduct Registry

SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL POLICE MISCONDUCT

REGISTRY.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a National Police Misconduct Registry to be compiled and maintained by the Department of Justice.

(b) Contents of Registry.--The Registry required to be established under subsection (a) shall contain the following data with respect to all Federal and local law enforcement officers:

(1) Each complaint filed against a law enforcement officer, aggregated by--

(A) complaints that were found to be credible or that resulted in disciplinary action against the law enforcement officer, disaggregated by whether the complaint involved a use of force or racial profiling (as such term is defined in section 302);

(B) complaints that are pending review, disaggregated by whether the complaint involved a use of force or racial profiling; and

(C) complaints for which the law enforcement officer was exonerated or that were determined to be unfounded or not sustained, disaggregated by whether the complaint involved a use of force or racial profiling.

(2) Discipline records, disaggregated by whether the complaint involved a use of force or racial profiling.

(3) Termination records, the reason for each termination, disaggregated by whether the complaint involved a use of force or racial profiling.

(4) Records of certification in accordance with section 202.

(5) Records of lawsuits against law enforcement officers and settlements of such lawsuits.

(6) Instances where a law enforcement officer resigns or retires while under active investigation related to the use of force.

(c) Federal Agency Reporting Requirements.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the head of each Federal law enforcement agency shall submit to the Attorney General the information described in subsection (b).

(d) State and Local Law Enforcement Agency Reporting Requirements.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year after the date of enactment of this Act and each fiscal year thereafter in which a State receives funds under the Byrne grant program, the State shall, once every 180 days, submit to the Attorney General the information described in subsection (b) for the State and each local law enforcement agency within the State.

(e) Public Availability of Registry.--

(1) In general.--In establishing the Registry required under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall make the Registry available to the public on an internet website of the Attorney General in a manner that allows members of the public to search for an individual law enforcement officer's records of misconduct, as described in subsection (b), involving a use of force or racial profiling.

(2) Privacy protections.--Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to supersede the requirements or limitations under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the ``Privacy Act of 1974'').

SEC. 202. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HIRING OF LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

(a) In General.-- Beginning in the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, a State or unit of local government, other than an Indian Tribe, may not receive funds under the Byrne grant program for that fiscal year if, on the day before the first day of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local government has not--

(1) submitted to the Attorney General evidence that the State or unit of local government has a certification and decertification program for purposes of employment as a law enforcement officer in that State or unit of local government that is consistent with the rules made under subsection (c); and

(2) submitted to the National Police Misconduct Registry established under section 201 records demonstrating that all law enforcement officers of the State or unit of local government have completed all State certification requirements during the 1-year period preceding the fiscal year.

(b) Availability of Information.--The Attorney General shall make available to law enforcement agencies all information in the registry under section 201 for purposes of compliance with the certification and decertification programs described in subsection (a)(1) and considering applications for employment.

(c) Rules.--The Attorney General shall make rules to carry out this section and section 201, including uniform reporting standards.

Subtitle B--PRIDE Act

SEC. 221. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Police Reporting Information, Data, and Evidence Act of 2021'' or the ``PRIDE Act of 2021''.

SEC. 222. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:

(1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).

(2) Local law enforcement officer.--The term ``local law enforcement officer'' has the meaning given the term in section 2, and includes a school resource officer.

(3) School.--The term ``school'' means an elementary school or secondary school (as those terms are defined in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

(20 U.S.C. 7801)).

(4) School resource officer.--The term ``school resource officer'' means a sworn law enforcement officer who is--

(A) assigned by the employing law enforcement agency to a local educational agency or school;

(B) contracting with a local educational agency or school; or

SEC. 223. USE OF FORCE REPORTING.

(a) Reporting Requirements.--

(1) In general.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year after the date of enactment of this Act and each fiscal year thereafter in which a State or Indian Tribe receives funds under a Byrne grant program, the State or Indian Tribe shall--

(A) report to the Attorney General, on a quarterly basis and pursuant to guidelines established by the Attorney General, information regarding--

(i) any incident involving the use of deadly force against a civilian by--

(I) a local law enforcement officer who is employed by the State or by a unit of local government in the State; or

(II) a tribal law enforcement officer who is employed by the Indian Tribe;

(ii) any incident involving the shooting of a local law enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement officer described in clause (i) by a civilian;

(iii) any incident involving the death or arrest of a local law enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement officer;

(iv) any incident during which use of force by or against a local law enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement officer described in clause (i) occurs, which is not reported under clause (i), (ii), or (iii);

(v) deaths in custody; and

(vi) uses of force in arrests and booking;

(B) establish a system and a set of policies to ensure that all use of force incidents are reported by local law enforcement officers or tribal law enforcement officers; and

(C) submit to the Attorney General a plan for the collection of data required to be reported under this section, including any modifications to a previously submitted data collection plan.

(2) Report information required.--

(A) In general.--The report required under paragraph (1)(A) shall contain information that includes, at a minimum--

(i) the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, English language proficiency, and housing status of each civilian against whom a local law enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement officer used force;

(ii) the date, time, and location, including whether it was on school grounds, and the zip code, of the incident and whether the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred allows for the open-carry or concealed-carry of a firearm;

(iii) whether the civilian was armed, and, if so, the type of weapon the civilian had;

(iv) the type of force used against the officer, the civilian, or both, including the types of weapons used;

(v) the reason force was used;

(vi) a description of any injuries sustained as a result of the incident;

(vii) the number of officers involved in the incident;

(viii) the number of civilians involved in the incident; and

(ix) a brief description regarding the circumstances surrounding the incident, which shall include information on--

(I) the type of force used by all involved persons;

(II) the legitimate police objective necessitating the use of force;

(III) the resistance encountered by each local law enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement officer involved in the incident;

(IV) the efforts by local law enforcement officers or tribal law enforcement officers to--

(aa) de-escalate the situation in order to avoid the use of force; or

(bb) minimize the level of force used; and

(V) if applicable, the reason why efforts described in subclause (IV) were not attempted.

(B) Incidents reported under death in custody reporting act.--A State or Indian Tribe is not required to include in a report under subsection (a)(1) an incident reported by the State or Indian Tribe in accordance with section 20104(a)(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

(34 U.S.C. 12104(a)(2)).

(C) Retention of data.--Each law enforcement agency required to report data under this section shall maintain records relating to any matter so reportable for not less than 4 years after those records are created.

(3) Audit of use-of-force reporting.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, each State or Indian Tribe described in paragraph

(1) shall--

(A) conduct an audit of the use of force incident reporting system required to be established under paragraph (1)(B); and

(B) submit a report to the Attorney General on the audit conducted under subparagraph (A).

(4) Compliance procedure.--Prior to submitting a report under paragraph (1)(A), the State or Indian Tribe submitting such report shall compare the information compiled to be reported pursuant to clause (i) of paragraph (1)(A) to publicly available sources, and shall revise such report to include any incident determined to be missing from the report based on such comparison. Failure to comply with the procedures described in the previous sentence shall be considered a failure to comply with the requirements of this section.

(b) Ineligibility for Funds.--

(1) In general.--For any fiscal year in which a State or Indian Tribe fails to comply with this section, the State or Indian Tribe, at the discretion of the Attorney General, shall be subject to not more than a 10-percent reduction of the funds that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal year to the State or Indian Tribe under a Byrne grant program.

(2) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated under a Byrne grant program in accordance with paragraph (1) to a State for failure to comply with this section shall be reallocated under the Byrne grant program to States that have not failed to comply with this section.

(3) Information regarding school resource officers.--The State or Indian Tribe shall ensure that all schools and local educational agencies within the jurisdiction of the State or Indian Tribe provide the State or Indian Tribe with the information needed regarding school resource officers to comply with this section.

(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney General shall publish, and make available to the public, a report containing the data reported to the Attorney General under this section.

(d) Guidance.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall issue guidance on best practices relating to establishing standard data collection systems that capture the information required to be reported under subsection

(a)(2), which shall include standard and consistent definitions for terms.

SEC. 224. USE OF FORCE DATA REPORTING.

(a) Technical Assistance Grants Authorized.--The Attorney General may make grants to eligible law enforcement agencies to be used for the activities described in subsection (c).

(b) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible to receive a grant under this section a law enforcement agency shall--

(1) be a tribal law enforcement agency or be located in a State that receives funds under a Byrne grant program;

(2) employ not more that 100 local or tribal law enforcement officers;

(3) demonstrate that the use of force policy for local law enforcement officers or tribal law enforcement officers employed by the law enforcement agency is publicly available; and

(4) establish and maintain a complaint system that--

(A) may be used by members of the public to report incidents of use of force to the law enforcement agency;

(B) makes all information collected publicly searchable and available; and

(1) the cost of assisting the State or Indian Tribe in which the law enforcement agency is located in complying with the reporting requirements described in section 223;

(2) the cost of establishing necessary systems required to investigate and report incidents as required under subsection

(b)(4);

(3) public awareness campaigns designed to gain information from the public on use of force by or against local and tribal law enforcement officers, including shootings, which may include tip lines, hotlines, and public service announcements; and

(4) use of force training for law enforcement agencies and personnel, including training on de-escalation, implicit bias, crisis intervention techniques, and adolescent development.

SEC. 225. COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney General shall conduct an audit and review of the information provided under this subtitle to determine whether each State or Indian Tribe described in section 223(a)(1) is in compliance with the requirements of this subtitle.

(b) Consistency in Data Reporting.--

(1) In general.--Any data reported under this subtitle shall be collected and reported--

(A) in a manner consistent with existing programs of the Department of Justice that collect data on local law enforcement officer encounters with civilians; and

(B) in a manner consistent with civil rights laws for distribution of information to the public.

(2) Guidelines.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall--

(A) issue guidelines on the reporting requirement under section 223; and

(B) seek public comment before finalizing the guidelines required under subparagraph (A).

SEC. 226. FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORTING.

The head of each Federal law enforcement agency shall submit to the Attorney General, on a quarterly basis and pursuant to guidelines established by the Attorney General, the information required to be reported by a State or Indian Tribe under section 223.

SEC. 227. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General such sums as are necessary to carry out this subtitle.

TITLE III--IMPROVING POLICE TRAINING AND POLICIES

Subtitle A--End Racial and Religious Profiling Act

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2021'' or ``ERRPA''.

SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:

(1) Covered program.--The term ``covered program'' means any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under--

(A) a Byrne grant program; and

(B) the COPS grant program, except that no program, project, or other activity specified in section 1701(b)(13) of part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381 et seq.) shall be a covered program under this paragraph.

(2) Governmental body.--The term ``governmental body'' means any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of Federal, State, local, or Indian Tribal government.

(3) Hit rate.--The term ``hit rate'' means the percentage of stops and searches in which a law enforcement agent finds drugs, a gun, or something else that leads to an arrest. The hit rate is calculated by dividing the total number of searches by the number of searches that yield contraband. The hit rate is complementary to the rate of false stops.

(4) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement agency'' means any Federal, State, or local public agency engaged in the prevention, detection, or investigation of violations of criminal, immigration, or customs laws.

(5) Law enforcement agent.--The term ``law enforcement agent'' means any Federal, State, or local official responsible for enforcing criminal, immigration, or customs laws, including police officers and other agents of a law enforcement agency.

(6) Racial profiling.--

(A) In general.--The term ``racial profiling'' means the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any degree, on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure, except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person with a particular characteristic described in this paragraph to an identified criminal incident or scheme.

(B) Exception.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a tribal law enforcement officer exercising law enforcement authority within Indian country, as that term is defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, is not considered to be racial profiling with respect to making key jurisdictional determinations that are necessarily tied to reliance on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, or tribal affiliation.

(7) Routine or spontaneous investigatory activities.--The term ``routine or spontaneous investigatory activities'' means the following activities by a law enforcement agent:

(A) Interviews.

(B) Traffic stops.

(D) Frisks and other types of body searches.

(E) Consensual or nonconsensual searches of the persons, property, or possessions (including vehicles) of individuals using any form of public or private transportation, including motorists and pedestrians.

(F) Data collection and analysis, assessments, and predicated investigations.

(G) Inspections and interviews of entrants into the United States that are more extensive than those customarily carried out.

(H) Immigration-related workplace investigations.

(I) Such other types of law enforcement encounters compiled for or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics.

(8) Reasonable request.--The term ``reasonable request'' means all requests for information, except for those that--

(A) are immaterial to the investigation;

(B) would result in the unnecessary disclosure of personal information; or

PART I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING

SEC. 311. PROHIBITION.

No law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall engage in racial profiling.

SEC. 312. ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Remedy.--The United States, or an individual injured by racial profiling, may enforce this part in a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief, filed either in a State court of general jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States.

(b) Parties.--In any action brought under this part, relief may be obtained against--

(1) any governmental body that employed any law enforcement agent who engaged in racial profiling;

(2) any agent of such body who engaged in racial profiling; and

(3) any person with supervisory authority over such agent.

(c) Nature of Proof.--Proof that the routine or spontaneous investigatory activities of law enforcement agents in a jurisdiction have had a disparate impact on individuals with a particular characteristic described in section 302(6) shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of this part.

(d) Attorney's Fees.--In any action or proceeding to enforce this part against any governmental body, the court may allow a prevailing plaintiff, other than the United States, reasonable attorney's fees as part of the costs, and may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee. The term ``prevailing plaintiff'' means a plaintiff that substantially prevails pursuant to a judicial or administrative judgment or order, or an enforceable written agreement.

PART II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW

ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

SEC. 321. POLICIES TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING.

(a) In General.--Federal law enforcement agencies shall--

(1) maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to eliminate racial profiling; and

(2) cease existing practices that permit racial profiling.

(b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in subsection (a)(1) shall include--

(1) a prohibition on racial profiling;

(2) training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal law enforcement training;

(3) the collection of data in accordance with the regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 341;

(4) procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding meaningfully to complaints alleging racial profiling by law enforcement agents; and

(5) any other policies and procedures the Attorney General determines to be necessary to eliminate racial profiling by Federal law enforcement agencies.

PART III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW

ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

SEC. 331. POLICIES REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.

(a) In General.--An application by a State or a unit of local government for funding under a covered program shall include a certification that such State, unit of local government, and any law enforcement agency to which it will distribute funds--

(1) maintains adequate policies and procedures designed to eliminate racial profiling; and

(2) has eliminated any existing practices that permit or encourage racial profiling.

(b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in subsection (a)(1) shall include--

(1) a prohibition on racial profiling;

(2) training on racial profiling issues as part of law enforcement training;

(3) the collection of data in accordance with the regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 341; and

(4) participation in an administrative complaint procedure or independent audit program that meets the requirements of section 332.

SEC. 332. INVOLVEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) Regulations.--

(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act and in consultation with stakeholders, including Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, research, and civil rights organizations, the Attorney General shall issue regulations for the operation of administrative complaint procedures and independent audit programs to ensure that such procedures and programs provide an appropriate response to allegations of racial profiling by law enforcement agents or agencies.

(2) Guidelines.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1) shall contain guidelines that ensure the fairness, effectiveness, and independence of the administrative complaint procedures and independent auditor programs.

(b) Noncompliance.--If the Attorney General determines that the recipient of a grant from any covered program is not in compliance with the requirements of section 331 or the regulations issued under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall withhold, in whole or in part (at the discretion of the Attorney General), funds for one or more grants to the recipient under the covered program, until the recipient establishes compliance.

(c) Private Parties.--The Attorney General shall provide notice and an opportunity for private parties to present evidence to the Attorney General that a recipient of a grant from any covered program is not in compliance with the requirements of this part.

SEC. 333. DATA COLLECTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

(a) Technical Assistance Grants for Data Collection.--

(1) In general.--The Attorney General may, through competitive grants or contracts, carry out a 2-year demonstration project for the purpose of developing and implementing data collection programs on the hit rates for stops and searches by law enforcement agencies. The data collected shall be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, and religion.

(2) Number of grants.--The Attorney General shall provide not more than 5 grants or contracts under this section.

(3) Eligible grantees.--Grants or contracts under this section shall be awarded to law enforcement agencies that serve communities where there is a significant concentration of racial or ethnic minorities and that are not already collecting data voluntarily.

(b) Required Activities.--Activities carried out with a grant under this section shall include--

(1) developing a data collection tool and reporting the compiled data to the Attorney General; and

(2) training of law enforcement personnel on data collection, particularly for data collection on hit rates for stops and searches.

(c) Evaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall enter into a contract with an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965

(20 U.S.C. 1001)) to analyze the data collected by each of the grantees funded under this section.

(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out activities under this section--

(1) $5,000,000, over a 2-year period, to carry out the demonstration program under subsection (a); and

(2) $500,000 to carry out the evaluation under subsection

(c).

SEC. 334. DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES.

(a) Use of Funds Requirement.--Section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153(a)), as amended by sections 113 and 114, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(9) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an application, the applicant will use not less than 10 percent of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to develop and implement best practice devices and systems to eliminate racial profiling in accordance with section 334 of the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2021.''.

(b) Development of Best Practices.--Grant amounts described in paragraph (9) of section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153(a)), as added by subsection (a) of this section, shall be for programs that include the following:

(1) The development and implementation of training to prevent racial profiling and to encourage more respectful interaction with the public.

(2) The acquisition and use of technology to facilitate the accurate collection and analysis of data.

(3) The development and acquisition of feedback systems and technologies that identify law enforcement agents or units of agents engaged in, or at risk of engaging in, racial profiling or other misconduct.

(4) The establishment and maintenance of an administrative complaint procedure or independent auditor program.

SEC. 335. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General such sums as are necessary to carry out this part.

PART IV--DATA COLLECTION

SEC. 341. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS.

(a) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, research, and civil rights organizations, shall issue regulations for the collection and compilation of data under sections 321 and 331.

(b) Requirements.--The regulations issued under subsection

(a) shall--

(1) provide for the collection of data on all routine and spontaneous investigatory activities;

(2) provide that the data collected shall--

(A) be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, and religion;

(B) include the date, time, and location of such investigatory activities;

(C) include detail sufficient to permit an analysis of whether a law enforcement agency is engaging in racial profiling; and

(D) not include personally identifiable information;

(3) provide that a standardized form shall be made available to law enforcement agencies for the submission of collected data to the Department of Justice;

(4) provide that law enforcement agencies shall compile data on the standardized form made available under paragraph

(3), and submit the form to the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics;

(5) provide that law enforcement agencies shall maintain all data collected under this subtitle for not less than 4 years;

(6) include guidelines for setting comparative benchmarks, consistent with best practices, against which collected data shall be measured;

(7) provide that the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics shall--

(A) analyze the data for any statistically significant disparities, including--

(i) disparities in the percentage of drivers or pedestrians stopped relative to the proportion of the population passing through the neighborhood;

(ii) disparities in the hit rate; and

(iii) disparities in the frequency of searches performed on racial or ethnic minority drivers and the frequency of searches performed on nonminority drivers; and

(B) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter--

(i) prepare a report regarding the findings of the analysis conducted under subparagraph (A);

(ii) provide such report to Congress; and

(iii) make such report available to the public, including on a website of the Department of Justice, and in accordance with accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.); and

(8) protect the privacy of individuals whose data is collected by--

(A) limiting the use of the data collected under this subtitle to the purposes set forth in this subtitle;

(B) except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, limiting access to the data collected under this subtitle to those Federal, State, or local employees or agents who require such access in order to fulfill the purposes for the data set forth in this subtitle;

(C) requiring contractors or other nongovernmental agents who are permitted access to the data collected under this subtitle to sign use agreements incorporating the use and disclosure restrictions set forth in subparagraph (A); and

(D) requiring the maintenance of adequate security measures to prevent unauthorized access to the data collected under this subtitle.

SEC. 342. PUBLICATION OF DATA.

The Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice shall provide to Congress and make available to the public, together with each annual report described in section 341, the data collected pursuant to this subtitle, excluding any personally identifiable information described in section 343.

SEC. 343. LIMITATIONS ON PUBLICATION OF DATA.

The name or identifying information of a law enforcement agent, complainant, or any other individual involved in any activity for which data is collected and compiled under this subtitle shall not be--

(1) released to the public;

(2) disclosed to any person, except for--

(A) such disclosures as are necessary to comply with this subtitle;

(B) disclosures of information regarding a particular person to that person; or

(3) subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act), except for disclosures of information regarding a particular person to that person.

PART V--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS ON RACIAL

PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES

SEC. 351. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS.

(a) Regulations.--In addition to the regulations required under sections 333 and 341, the Attorney General shall issue such other regulations as the Attorney General determines are necessary to implement this subtitle.

(b) Reports.--

(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report on racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.

(2) Scope.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include--

(A) a summary of data collected under sections 321(b)(3) and 331(b)(3) and from any other reliable source of information regarding racial profiling in the United States;

(B) a discussion of the findings in the most recent report prepared by the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics under section 341(b)(7);

(C) the status of the adoption and implementation of policies and procedures by Federal law enforcement agencies under section 321 and by the State and local law enforcement agencies under sections 331 and 332; and

(D) a description of any other policies and procedures that the Attorney General believes would facilitate the elimination of racial profiling.

Subtitle B--Additional Reforms

SEC. 361. TRAINING ON RACIAL BIAS AND DUTY TO INTERVENE.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish--

(1) a training program for law enforcement officers to cover racial profiling, implicit bias, and procedural justice; and

(2) a clear duty for Federal law enforcement officers to intervene in cases where another law enforcement officer is using excessive force against a civilian, and establish a training program that covers the duty to intervene.

(b) Mandatory Training for Federal Law Enforcement Officers.--The head of each Federal law enforcement agency shall require each Federal law enforcement officer employed by the agency to complete the training programs established under subsection (a).

(c) Limitation on Eligibility for Funds.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of local government may not receive funds under the Byrne grant program for a fiscal year if, on the day before the first day of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local government does not require each law enforcement officer in the State or unit of local government to complete the training programs established under subsection (a).

(d) Grants To Train Law Enforcement Officers on Use of Force.--Section 501(a)(1) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10152(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(I) Training programs for law enforcement officers, including training programs on use of force and a duty to intervene.''.

SEC. 362. BAN ON NO-KNOCK WARRANTS IN DRUG CASES.

(a) Ban on Federal Warrants in Drug Cases.--Section 509 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 879) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``A search warrant authorized under this section shall require that a law enforcement officer execute the search warrant only after providing notice of his or her authority and purpose.''.

(b) Limitation on Eligibility for Funds.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of local government may not receive funds under the COPS grant program for a fiscal year if, on the day before the first day of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local government does not have in effect a law that prohibits the issuance of a no-knock warrant in a drug case.

(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``no-knock warrant'' means a warrant that allows a law enforcement officer to enter a property without requiring the law enforcement officer to announce the presence of the law enforcement officer or the intention of the law enforcement officer to enter the property.

SEC. 363. INCENTIVIZING BANNING OF CHOKEHOLDS AND CAROTID

HOLDS.

(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``chokehold or carotid hold'' means the application of any pressure to the throat or windpipe, the use of maneuvers that restrict blood or oxygen flow to the brain, or carotid artery restraints that prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air of an individual.

(b) Limitation on Eligibility for Funds.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of local government may not receive funds under the Byrne grant program or the COPS grant program for a fiscal year if, on the day before the first day of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local government does not have in effect a law that prohibits law enforcement officers in the State or unit of local government from using a chokehold or carotid hold.

(1) Short title.--This subsection may be cited as the

``Eric Garner Excessive Use of Force Prevention Act''.

(2) Chokeholds as civil rights violations.--Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 101, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``For the purposes of this section, the application of any pressure to the throat or windpipe, use of maneuvers that restrict blood or oxygen flow to the brain, or carotid artery restraints which prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air is a punishment, pain, or penalty.''.

SEC. 364. PEACE ACT.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Police Exercising Absolute Care With Everyone Act of 2021'' or the

``PEACE Act of 2021''.

(b) Use of Force by Federal Law Enforcement Officers.--

(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:

(A) Deescalation tactics and techniques.--The term

``deescalation tactics and techniques'' means proactive actions and approaches used by a Federal law enforcement officer to stabilize the situation so that more time, options, and resources are available to gain a person's voluntary compliance and reduce or eliminate the need to use force, including verbal persuasion, warnings, tactical techniques, slowing down the pace of an incident, waiting out a subject, creating distance between the officer and the threat, and requesting additional resources to resolve the incident.

(B) Necessary.--The term ``necessary'' means that another reasonable Federal law enforcement officer would objectively conclude, under the totality of the circumstances, that there was no reasonable alternative to the use of force.

(i) In general.--The term ``reasonable alternatives'' means tactics and methods used by a Federal law enforcement officer to effectuate an arrest that do not unreasonably increase the risk posed to the law enforcement officer or another person, including verbal communication, distance, warnings, deescalation tactics and techniques, tactical repositioning, and other tactics and techniques intended to stabilize the situation and reduce the immediacy of the risk so that more time, options, and resources can be called upon to resolve the situation without the use of force.

(ii) Deadly force.--With respect to the use of deadly force, the term ``reasonable alternatives'' includes the use of less lethal force.

(D) Totality of the circumstances.--The term ``totality of the circumstances'' means all credible facts known to the Federal law enforcement officer leading up to and at the time of the use of force, including the actions of the person against whom the Federal law enforcement officer uses such force and the actions of the Federal law enforcement officer.

(2) Prohibition on less lethal force.--A Federal law enforcement officer may not use any less lethal force unless--

(A) the form of less lethal force used is necessary and proportional in order to effectuate an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a criminal offense; and

(B) reasonable alternatives to the use of the form of less lethal force have been exhausted.

(3) Prohibition on deadly use of force.--A Federal law enforcement officer may not use deadly force against a person unless--

(A) the form of deadly force used is necessary, as a last resort, to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another person;

(B) the use of the form of deadly force creates no substantial risk of injury to a third person; and

(4) Requirement to give verbal warning.--When feasible, prior to using force against a person, a Federal law enforcement officer shall identify himself or herself as a Federal law enforcement officer, and issue a verbal warning to the person that the Federal law enforcement officer seeks to apprehend, which shall--

(A) include a request that the person surrender to the law enforcement officer; and

(B) notify the person that the law enforcement officer will use force against the person if the person resists arrest or flees.

(5) Guidance on use of force.--Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with impacted persons, communities, and organizations, including representatives of civil and human rights organizations, victims of police use of force, and representatives of law enforcement associations, shall provide guidance to Federal law enforcement agencies on--

(A) the types of less lethal force and deadly force that are prohibited under paragraphs (2) and (3); and

(B) how a Federal law enforcement officer can--

(i) assess whether the use of force is appropriate and necessary; and

(ii) use the least amount of force when interacting with--

(I) pregnant individuals;

(II) children and youth under 21 years of age;

(III) elderly persons;

(IV) persons with mental, behavioral, or physical disabilities or impairments;

(V) persons experiencing perceptual or cognitive impairments due to use of alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, or other drugs;

(VI) persons suffering from a serious medical condition; and

(VII) persons with limited English proficiency.

(6) Training.--The Attorney General shall provide training to Federal law enforcement officers on interacting people described in subclauses (I) through (VII) of paragraph

(5)(B)(ii).

(7) Limitation on justification defense.--

(A) In general.--Chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 1123. Limitation on justification defense for Federal law enforcement officers

``(a) In General.--It is not a defense to an offense under section 1111 or 1112 that the use of less lethal force or deadly force by a Federal law enforcement officer was justified if--

``(1) that officer's use of use of such force was inconsistent with section 364(b) of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021; or

``(2) that officer's gross negligence, leading up to and at the time of the use of force, contributed to the necessity of the use of such force.

``(b) Definitions.--In this section--

``(1) the terms `deadly force' and `less lethal force' have the meanings given such terms in section 2 and section 364 of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021; and

``(2) the term `Federal law enforcement officer' has the meaning given such term in section 115.''.

(B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1122 the following:

``1123. Limitation on justification defense for Federal law enforcement officers.''.

(1) Limitation.--A State or unit of local government, other than an Indian Tribe, may not receive funds that the State or unit of local government would otherwise receive under a Byrne grant program for a fiscal year if, on the day before the first day of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local government does not have in effect a law that is consistent with subsection (b) of this section and section 1123 of title 18, United States Code, as determined by the Attorney General.

(2) Subsequent enactment.--

(A) In general.--If funds described in paragraph (1) are withheld from a State or unit of local government pursuant to paragraph (1) for 1 or more fiscal years, and the State or unit of local government enacts or puts in place a law described in paragraph (1), and demonstrates substantial efforts to enforce such law, subject to subparagraph (B), the State or unit of local government shall be eligible, in the fiscal year after the fiscal year during which the State or unit of local government demonstrates such substantial efforts, to receive the total amount that the State or unit of local government would have received during each fiscal year for which funds were withheld.

(B) Limit on amount of prior year funds.--A State or unit of local government may not receive funds under subparagraph

(A) in an amount that is more than the amount withheld from the State or unit of local government during the 5-fiscal- year period before the fiscal year during which funds are received under subparagraph (A).

(3) Guidance.--Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with impacted persons, communities, and organizations, including representatives of civil and human rights organizations, individuals against whom a law enforcement officer used force, and representatives of law enforcement associations, shall make guidance available to States and units of local government on the criteria that the Attorney General will use in determining whether the State or unit of local government has in place a law described in paragraph

(1).

(4) Application.--This subsection shall apply to the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and each fiscal year thereafter.

SEC. 365. STOP MILITARIZING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Under section 2576a of title 10, United States Code, the Department of Defense is authorized to provide excess property to local law enforcement agencies. The Defense Logistics Agency, administers such section by operating the Law Enforcement Support Office program.

(2) New and used material, including mine-resistant ambush- protected vehicles and weapons determined by the Department of Defense to be ``military grade'' are transferred to Federal, Tribal, State, and local law enforcement agencies through the program.

(3) As a result local law enforcement agencies, including police and sheriff's departments, are acquiring this material for use in their normal operations.

(4) As a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military equipment purchased for, and used in, those wars has become excess property and has been made available for transfer to local and Federal law enforcement agencies.

(5) In Fiscal Year 2017, $504,000,000 worth of property was transferred to law enforcement agencies.

(6) More than $6,800,000,000 worth of weapons and equipment have been transferred to police organizations in all 50 States and four territories through the program.

(7) In May 2012, the Defense Logistics Agency instituted a moratorium on weapons transfers through the program after reports of missing equipment and inappropriate weapons transfers.

(8) Though the moratorium was widely publicized, it was lifted in October 2013 without adequate safeguards.

(9) On January 16, 2015, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13688 to better coordinate and regulate the federal transfer of military weapons and equipment to State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies.

(10) In July, 2017, the Government Accountability Office reported that the program's internal controls were inadequate to prevent fraudulent applicants' access to the program.

(11) On August, 28, 2017, President Donald Trump rescinded Executive Order 13688 despite a July 2017 Government Accountability Office report finding deficiencies with the administration of the 1033 program.

(12) As a result, Federal, State, and local law enforcement departments across the country are eligible again to acquire free ``military-grade'' weapons and equipment that could be used inappropriately during policing efforts in which people and taxpayers could be harmed.

(13) The Department of Defense categorizes equipment eligible for transfer under the 1033 program as

``controlled'' and ``un-controlled'' equipment. ``Controlled equipment'' includes weapons, explosives such as flash-bang grenades, mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, long- range acoustic devices, aircraft capable of being modified to carry armament that are combat coded, and silencers, among other military grade items.

(b) Limitation on Department of Defense Transfer of Personal Property to Local Law Enforcement Agencies.--

(1) In general.--Section 2576a of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(A) in subsection (a)--

(i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``counterdrug, counterterrorism, and border security activities'' and inserting ``counterterrorism''; and

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, the Director of National Drug Control Policy,'';

(B) in subsection (b)--

(i) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;

(ii) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

``(7) the recipient submits to the Department of Defense a description of how the recipient expects to use the property;

``(8) the recipient certifies to the Department of Defense that if the recipient determines that the property is surplus to the needs of the recipient, the recipient will return the property to the Department of Defense;

``(9) with respect to a recipient that is not a Federal agency, the recipient certifies to the Department of Defense that the recipient notified the local community of the request for personal property under this section by--

``(A) publishing a notice of such request on a publicly accessible Internet website;

``(B) posting such notice at several prominent locations in the jurisdiction of the recipient; and

``(C) ensuring that such notices were available to the local community for a period of not less than 30 days; and

``(10) the recipient has received the approval of the city council or other local governing body to acquire the personal property sought under this section.'';

(D) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections

(o) and (p), respectively; and

(E) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsections:

``(d) Annual Certification Accounting for Transferred Property.--(1) For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress certification in writing that each Federal or State agency to which the Secretary has transferred property under this section--

``(A) has provided to the Secretary documentation accounting for all controlled property, including arms and ammunition, that the Secretary has transferred to the agency, including any item described in subsection (f) so transferred before the date of the enactment of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021; and

``(B) with respect to a non-Federal agency, carried out each of paragraphs (5) through (8) of subsection (b).

``(2) If the Secretary does not provide a certification under paragraph (1) for a Federal or State agency, the Secretary may not transfer additional property to that agency under this section.

``(e) Annual Report on Excess Property.--Before making any property available for transfer under this section, the Secretary shall annually submit to Congress a description of the property to be transferred together with a certification that the transfer of the property would not violate this section or any other provision of law.

``(f) Limitations on Transfers.--(1) The Secretary may not transfer to Federal, Tribal, State, or local law enforcement agencies the following under this section:

``(A) Firearms, ammunition, bayonets, grenade launchers, grenades (including stun and flash-bang), and explosives.

``(B) Vehicles, except for passenger automobiles (as such term is defined in section 32901(a)(18) of title 49, United States Code) and bucket trucks.

``(C) Drones.

``(D) Controlled aircraft that--

``(i) are combat configured or combat coded; or

``(ii) have no established commercial flight application.

``(E) Silencers.

``(F) Long-range acoustic devices.

``(G) Items in the Federal Supply Class of banned items.

``(2) The Secretary may not require, as a condition of a transfer under this section, that a Federal or State agency demonstrate the use of any small arms or ammunition.

``(3) The limitations under this subsection shall also apply with respect to the transfer of previously transferred property of the Department of Defense from one Federal or State agency to another such agency.

``(4)(A) The Secretary may waive the applicability of paragraph (1) to a vehicle described in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (other than a mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle), if the Secretary determines that such a waiver is necessary for disaster or rescue purposes or for another purpose where life and public safety are at risk, as demonstrated by the proposed recipient of the vehicle.

``(B) If the Secretary issues a waiver under subparagraph

(A), the Secretary shall--

``(i) submit to Congress notice of the waiver, and post such notice on a public Internet website of the Department, by not later than 30 days after the date on which the waiver is issued; and

``(ii) require, as a condition of the waiver, that the recipient of the vehicle for which the waiver is issued provides public notice of the waiver and the transfer, including the type of vehicle and the purpose for which it is transferred, in the jurisdiction where the recipient is located by not later than 30 days after the date on which the waiver is issued.

``(5) The Secretary may provide for an exemption to the limitation under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) in the case of parts for aircraft described in such subparagraph that are transferred as part of regular maintenance of aircraft in an existing fleet.

``(6) The Secretary shall require, as a condition of any transfer of property under this section, that the Federal or State agency that receives the property shall return the property to the Secretary if the agency--

``(A) is investigated by the Department of Justice for any violation of civil liberties; or

``(B) is otherwise found to have engaged in widespread abuses of civil liberties.

``(g) Conditions for Extension of Program.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any fiscal year may not be obligated or expended to carry out this section unless the Secretary submits to Congress certification that for the preceding fiscal year that--

``(1) each Federal or State agency that has received controlled property transferred under this section has--

``(A) demonstrated 100 percent accountability for all such property, in accordance with paragraph (2) or (3), as applicable; or

``(B) been suspended from the program pursuant to paragraph

(4);

``(2) with respect to each non-Federal agency that has received controlled property under this section, the State coordinator responsible for each such agency has verified that the coordinator or an agent of the coordinator has conducted an in-person inventory of the property transferred to the agency and that 100 percent of such property was accounted for during the inventory or that the agency has been suspended from the program pursuant to paragraph (4);

``(3) with respect to each Federal agency that has received controlled property under this section, the Secretary of Defense or an agent of the Secretary has conducted an in- person inventory of the property transferred to the agency and that 100 percent of such property was accounted for during the inventory or that the agency has been suspended from the program pursuant to paragraph (4);

``(4) the eligibility of any agency that has received controlled property under this section for which 100 percent of the property was not accounted for during an inventory described in paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable, to receive any property transferred under this section has been suspended; and

``(5) each State coordinator has certified, for each non- Federal agency located in the State for which the State coordinator is responsible that--

``(A) the agency has complied with all requirements under this section; or

``(B) the eligibility of the agency to receive property transferred under this section has been suspended; and

``(6) the Secretary of Defense has certified, for each Federal agency that has received property under this section that--

``(A) the agency has complied with all requirements under this section; or

``(B) the eligibility of the agency to receive property transferred under this section has been suspended.

``(h) Prohibition on Ownership of Controlled Property.--A Federal or State agency that receives controlled property under this section may not take ownership of the property.

``(i) Notice to Congress of Property Downgrades.--Not later than 30 days before downgrading the classification of any item of personal property from controlled or Federal Supply Class, the Secretary shall submit to Congress notice of the proposed downgrade.

``(j) Notice to Congress of Property Cannibalization.-- Before the Defense Logistics Agency authorizes the recipient of property transferred under this section to cannibalize the property, the Secretary shall submit to Congress notice of such authorization, including the name of the recipient requesting the authorization, the purpose of the proposed cannibalization, and the type of property proposed to be cannibalized.

``(k) Quarterly Reports on Use of Controlled Equipment.-- Not later than 30 days after the last day of a fiscal quarter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on any uses of controlled property transferred under this section during that fiscal quarter.

``(l) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after the last day of a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the following for the preceding fiscal year:

``(1) The percentage of equipment lost by recipients of property transferred under this section, including specific information about the type of property lost, the monetary value of such property, and the recipient that lost the property.

``(2) The transfer of any new (condition code A) property transferred under this section, including specific information about the type of property, the recipient of the property, the monetary value of each item of the property, and the total monetary value of all such property transferred during the fiscal year.''.

(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to any transfer of property made after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 366. PUBLIC SAFETY INNOVATION GRANTS.

(a) Byrne Grants Used for Local Task Forces on Public Safety Innovation.--Section 501(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151(a)), as amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

``(3) Local task forces on public safety innovation.--

``(A) In general.--A law enforcement program under paragraph (1)(A) may include the development of best practices for and the creation of local task forces on public safety innovation, charged with exploring and developing new strategies for public safety, including non-law enforcement strategies.

``(B) Definition.--The term `local task force on public safety innovation' means an administrative entity, created from partnerships between community-based organizations and other local stakeholders, that may develop innovative law enforcement and non-law enforcement strategies to enhance just and equitable public safety, repair breaches of trust between law enforcement agencies and the community they pledge to serve, and enhance accountability of law enforcement officers.''.

(b) Crisis Intervention Teams.--Section 501(c) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10152(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(3) In the case of crisis intervention teams funded under subsection (a)(1)(H), a program assessment under this subsection shall contain a report on best practices for crisis intervention.''.

(c) Use of COPS Grant Program To Hire Law Enforcement Officers Who Are Residents of the Communities They Serve.-- Section 1701(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381(b)), as amended by this Act, is further amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (23) and (24) as paragraphs

(26) and (27), respectively;

(2) in paragraph (26), as so redesignated, by striking

``(22)'' and inserting ``(25)''; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (22) the following:

``(23) to recruit, hire, incentivize, retain, develop, and train new, additional career law enforcement officers or current law enforcement officers who are willing to relocate to communities--

``(A) where there are poor or fragmented relationships between police and residents of the community, or where there are high incidents of crime; and

``(B) that are the communities that the law enforcement officers serve, or that are in close proximity to the communities that the law enforcement officers serve;

``(24) to collect data on the number of law enforcement officers who are willing to relocate to the communities where they serve, and whether such law enforcement officer relocations have impacted crime in such communities;

``(25) to develop and publicly report strategies and timelines to recruit, hire, promote, retain, develop, and train a diverse and inclusive law enforcement workforce, consistent with merit system principles and applicable law;''.

Subtitle C--Law Enforcement Body Cameras

PART 1--FEDERAL POLICE CAMERA AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

SEC. 371. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 372. REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

REGARDING THE USE OF BODY CAMERAS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:

(1) Minor.--The term ``minor'' means any individual under 18 years of age.

(2) Subject of the video footage.--The term ``subject of the video footage''--

(A) means any identifiable Federal law enforcement officer or any identifiable suspect, victim, detainee, conversant, injured party, or other similarly situated person who appears on the body camera recording; and

(B) does not include people who only incidentally appear on the recording.

(3) Video footage.--The term ``video footage'' means any images or audio recorded by a body camera.

(b) Requirement to Wear Body Camera.--

(1) In general.--Federal law enforcement officers shall wear a body camera.

(2) Requirement for body camera.--A body camera required under paragraph (1) shall--

(A) have a field of view at least as broad as the officer's vision; and

(B) be worn in a manner that maximizes the camera's ability to capture video footage of the officer's activities.

(1) In general.--Both the video and audio recording functions of the body camera shall be activated whenever a Federal law enforcement officer is responding to a call for service or at the initiation of any other law enforcement or investigative stop (as such term is defined in section 373) between a Federal law enforcement officer and a member of the public, except that when an immediate threat to the officer's life or safety makes activating the camera impossible or dangerous, the officer shall activate the camera at the first reasonable opportunity to do so.

(2) Allowable deactivation.--The body camera shall not be deactivated until the stop has fully concluded and the Federal law enforcement officer leaves the scene.

(d) Notification of Subject of Recording.--A Federal law enforcement officer who is wearing a body camera shall notify any subject of the recording that he or she is being recorded by a body camera as close to the inception of the stop as is reasonably possible.

(e) Requirements.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the following shall apply to the use of a body camera:

(1) Prior to entering a private residence without a warrant or in non-exigent circumstances, a Federal law enforcement officer shall ask the occupant if the occupant wants the officer to discontinue use of the officer's body camera. If the occupant responds affirmatively, the Federal law enforcement officer shall immediately discontinue use of the body camera.

(2) When interacting with an apparent crime victim, a Federal law enforcement officer shall, as soon as practicable, ask the apparent crime victim if the apparent crime victim wants the officer to discontinue use of the officer's body camera. If the apparent crime victim responds affirmatively, the Federal law enforcement officer shall immediately discontinue use of the body camera.

(3) When interacting with a person seeking to anonymously report a crime or assist in an ongoing law enforcement investigation, a Federal law enforcement officer shall, as soon as practicable, ask the person seeking to remain anonymous, if the person seeking to remain anonymous wants the officer to discontinue use of the officer's body camera. If the person seeking to remain anonymous responds affirmatively, the Federal law enforcement officer shall immediately discontinue use of the body camera.

(f) Recording of Offers To Discontinue Use of Body Camera.--Each offer of a Federal law enforcement officer to discontinue the use of a body camera made pursuant to subsection (e), and the responses thereto, shall be recorded by the body camera prior to discontinuing use of the body camera.

(g) Limitations on Use of Body Camera.--Body cameras shall not be used to gather intelligence information based on First Amendment protected speech, associations, or religion, or to record activity that is unrelated to a response to a call for service or a law enforcement or investigative stop between a law enforcement officer and a member of the public, and shall not be equipped with or employ any facial recognition technologies.

(h) Exceptions.--Federal law enforcement officers--

(1) shall not be required to use body cameras during investigative or enforcement stops with the public in the case that--

(A) recording would risk the safety of a confidential informant, citizen informant, or undercover officer;

(B) recording would pose a serious risk to national security; or

(C) the officer is a military police officer, a member of the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, or a protective detail assigned to a Federal or foreign official while performing his or her duties; and

(2) shall not activate a body camera while on the grounds of any public, private or parochial elementary or secondary school, except when responding to an imminent threat to life or health.

(i) Retention of Footage.--

(1) In general.--Body camera video footage shall be retained by the law enforcement agency that employs the officer whose camera captured the footage, or an authorized agent thereof, for 6 months after the date it was recorded, after which time such footage shall be permanently deleted.

(2) Right to inspect.--During the 6-month retention period described in paragraph (1), the following persons shall have the right to inspect the body camera footage:

(A) Any person who is a subject of body camera video footage, and their designated legal counsel.

(B) A parent or legal guardian of a minor subject of body camera video footage, and their designated legal counsel.

(C) The spouse, next of kin, or legally authorized designee of a deceased subject of body camera video footage, and their designated legal counsel.

(D) A Federal law enforcement officer whose body camera recorded the video footage, and their designated legal counsel, subject to the limitations and restrictions in this part.

(E) The superior officer of a Federal law enforcement officer whose body camera recorded the video footage, subject to the limitations and restrictions in this part.

(F) Any defense counsel who claims, pursuant to a written affidavit, to have a reasonable basis for believing a video may contain evidence that exculpates a client.

(3) Limitation.--The right to inspect subject to subsection

(j)(1) shall not include the right to possess a copy of the body camera video footage, unless the release of the body camera footage is otherwise authorized by this part or by another applicable law. When a body camera fails to capture some or all of the audio or video of an incident due to malfunction, displacement of camera, or any other cause, any audio or video footage that is captured shall be treated the same as any other body camera audio or video footage under this part.

(j) Additional Retention Requirements.--Notwithstanding the retention and deletion requirements in subsection (i), the following shall apply to body camera video footage under this part:

(1) Body camera video footage shall be automatically retained for not less than 3 years if the video footage captures an interaction or event involving--

(A) any use of force; or

(B) an stop about which a complaint has been registered by a subject of the video footage.

(2) Body camera video footage shall be retained for not less than 3 years if a longer retention period is voluntarily requested by--

(A) the Federal law enforcement officer whose body camera recorded the video footage, if that officer reasonably asserts the video footage has evidentiary or exculpatory value in an ongoing investigation;

(B) any Federal law enforcement officer who is a subject of the video footage, if that officer reasonably asserts the video footage has evidentiary or exculpatory value;

(C) any superior officer of a Federal law enforcement officer whose body camera recorded the video footage or who is a subject of the video footage, if that superior officer reasonably asserts the video footage has evidentiary or exculpatory value;

(D) any Federal law enforcement officer, if the video footage is being retained solely and exclusively for police training purposes;

(E) any member of the public who is a subject of the video footage;

(F) any parent or legal guardian of a minor who is a subject of the video footage; or

(G) a deceased subject's spouse, next of kin, or legally authorized designee.

(k) Public Review.--For purposes of subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) of subsection (j)(2), any member of the public who is a subject of video footage, the parent or legal guardian of a minor who is a subject of the video footage, or a deceased subject's next of kin or legally authorized designee, shall be permitted to review the specific video footage in question in order to make a determination as to whether they will voluntarily request it be subjected to a minimum 3-year retention period.

(l) Disclosure.--

(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), all video footage of an interaction or event captured by a body camera, if that interaction or event is identified with reasonable specificity and requested by a member of the public, shall be provided to the person or entity making the request in accordance with the procedures for requesting and providing government records set forth in the section 552a of title 5, United States Code.

(2) Exceptions.--The following categories of video footage shall not be released to the public in the absence of express written permission from the non-law enforcement subjects of the video footage:

(A) Video footage not subject to a minimum 3-year retention period pursuant to subsection (j).

(B) Video footage that is subject to a minimum 3-year retention period solely and exclusively pursuant to paragraph

(1)(B) or (2) of subsection (j).

(3) Priority of requests.--Notwithstanding any time periods established for acknowledging and responding to records requests in section 552a of title 5, United States Code, responses to requests for video footage that is subject to a minimum 3-year retention period pursuant to subsection

(j)(1)(A), where a subject of the video footage is recorded being killed, shot by a firearm, or grievously injured, shall be prioritized and, if approved, the requested video footage shall be provided as expeditiously as possible, but in no circumstances later than 5 days following receipt of the request.

(4) Use of redaction technology.--

(A) In general.--Whenever doing so is necessary to protect personal privacy, the right to a fair trial, the identity of a confidential source or crime victim, or the life or physical safety of any person appearing in video footage, redaction technology may be used to obscure the face and other personally identifying characteristics of that person, including the tone of the person's voice, provided the redaction does not interfere with a viewer's ability to fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events captured on the video footage.

(B) Requirements.--The following requirements shall apply to redactions under subparagraph (A):

(i) When redaction is performed on video footage pursuant to this paragraph, an unedited, original version of the video footage shall be retained pursuant to the requirements of subsections (i) and (j).

(ii) Except pursuant to the rules for the redaction of video footage set forth in this subsection or where it is otherwise expressly authorized by this Act, no other editing or alteration of video footage, including a reduction of the video footage's resolution, shall be permitted.

(m) Prohibited Withholding of Footage.--Body camera video footage may not be withheld from the public on the basis that it is an investigatory record or was compiled for law enforcement purposes where any person under investigation or whose conduct is under review is a police officer or other law enforcement employee and the video footage relates to that person's conduct in their official capacity.

(n) Admissibility.--Any video footage retained beyond 6 months solely and exclusively pursuant to subsection

(j)(2)(D) shall not be admissible as evidence in any criminal or civil legal or administrative proceeding.

(o) Confidentiality.--No government agency or official, or law enforcement agency, officer, or official may publicly disclose, release, or share body camera video footage unless--

(1) doing so is expressly authorized pursuant to this part or another applicable law; or

(2) the video footage is subject to public release pursuant to subsection (l), and not exempted from public release pursuant to subsection (l)(1).

(p) Limitation on Federal Law Enforcement Officer Viewing of Body Camera Footage.--No Federal law enforcement officer shall review or receive an accounting of any body camera video footage that is subject to a minimum 3-year retention period pursuant to subsection (j)(1) prior to completing any required initial reports, statements, and interviews regarding the recorded event, unless doing so is necessary, while in the field, to address an immediate threat to life or safety.

(q) Additional Limitations.--Video footage may not be--

(1) in the case of footage that is not subject to a minimum 3-year retention period, viewed by any superior officer of a Federal law enforcement officer whose body camera recorded the footage absent a specific allegation of misconduct; or

(2) divulged or used by any law enforcement agency for any commercial or other non-law enforcement purpose.

(r) Third Party Maintenance of Footage.--Where a law enforcement agency authorizes a third party to act as its agent in maintaining body camera footage, the agent shall not be permitted to independently access, view, or alter any video footage, except to delete videos as required by law or agency retention policies.

(s) Enforcement.--

(1) In general.--If any Federal law enforcement officer, or any employee or agent of a Federal law enforcement agency fails to adhere to the recording or retention requirements contained in this part, intentionally interferes with a body camera's ability to accurately capture video footage, or otherwise manipulates the video footage captured by a body camera during or after its operation--

(A) appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken against the individual officer, employee, or agent;

(B) a rebuttable evidentiary presumption shall be adopted in favor of a criminal defendant who reasonably asserts that exculpatory evidence was destroyed or not captured; and

(C) a rebuttable evidentiary presumption shall be adopted on behalf of a civil plaintiff suing the Government, a Federal law enforcement agency, or a Federal law enforcement officer for damages based on misconduct who reasonably asserts that evidence supporting their claim was destroyed or not captured.

(2) Proof compliance was impossible.--The disciplinary action requirement and rebuttable presumptions described in paragraph (1) may be overcome by contrary evidence or proof of exigent circumstances that made compliance impossible.

(t) Use of Force Investigations.--In the case that a Federal law enforcement officer equipped with a body camera is involved in, a witness to, or within viewable sight range of either the use of force by another law enforcement officer that results in a death, the use of force by another law enforcement officer, during which the discharge of a firearm results in an injury, or the conduct of another law enforcement officer that becomes the subject of a criminal investigation--

(1) the law enforcement agency that employs the law enforcement officer, or the agency or department conducting the related criminal investigation, as appropriate, shall promptly take possession of the body camera, and shall maintain such camera, and any data on such camera, in accordance with the applicable rules governing the preservation of evidence;

(2) a copy of the data on such body camera shall be made in accordance with prevailing forensic standards for data collection and reproduction; and

(3) such copied data shall be made available to the public in accordance with subsection (l).

(u) Limitation on Use of Footage as Evidence.--Any body camera video footage recorded by a Federal law enforcement officer that violates this part or any other applicable law may not be offered as evidence by any government entity, agency, department, prosecutorial office, or any other subdivision thereof in any criminal or civil action or proceeding against any member of the public.

(v) Publication of Agency Policies.--Any Federal law enforcement agency policy or other guidance regarding body cameras, their use, or the video footage therefrom that is adopted by a Federal agency or department, shall be made publicly available on that agency's website.

(w) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this part shall be construed to preempt any laws governing the maintenance, production, and destruction of evidence in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

SEC. 373. PATROL VEHICLES WITH IN-CAR VIDEO RECORDING

CAMERAS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:

(1) Audio recording.--The term ``audio recording'' means the recorded conversation between a Federal law enforcement officer and a second party.

(2) Emergency lights.--The term ``emergency lights'' means oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights on patrol vehicles.

(3) Enforcement or investigative stop.--The term

``enforcement or investigative stop'' means an action by a Federal law enforcement officer in relation to enforcement and investigation duties, including traffic stops, pedestrian stops, abandoned vehicle contacts, motorist assists, commercial motor vehicle stops, roadside safety checks, requests for identification, or responses to requests for emergency assistance.

(4) In-car video camera.--The term ``in-car video camera'' means a video camera located in a patrol vehicle.

(5) In-car video camera recording equipment.--The term

``in-car video camera recording equipment'' means a video camera recording system located in a patrol vehicle consisting of a camera assembly, recording mechanism, and an in-car video recording medium.

(6) Recording.--The term ``recording'' means the process of capturing data or information stored on a recording medium as required under this section.

(7) Recording medium.--The term ``recording medium'' means any recording medium for the retention and playback of recorded audio and video including VHS, DVD, hard drive, solid state, digital, or flash memory technology.

(8) Wireless microphone.--The term ``wireless microphone'' means a device worn by a Federal law enforcement officer or any other equipment used to record conversations between the officer and a second party and transmitted to the recording equipment.

(b) Requirements.--

(1) In general.--Each Federal law enforcement agency shall install in-car video camera recording equipment in all patrol vehicles with a recording medium capable of recording for a period of 10 hours or more and capable of making audio recordings with the assistance of a wireless microphone.

(2) Recording equipment requirements.--In-car video camera recording equipment with a recording medium capable of recording for a period of 10 hours or more shall record activities--

(A) whenever a patrol vehicle is assigned to patrol duty;

(B) outside a patrol vehicle whenever--

(i) a Federal law enforcement officer assigned that patrol vehicle is conducting an enforcement or investigative stop;

(ii) patrol vehicle emergency lights are activated or would otherwise be activated if not for the need to conceal the presence of law enforcement; or

(iii) an officer reasonably believes recording may assist with prosecution, enhance safety, or for any other lawful purpose; and

(C) inside the vehicle when transporting an arrestee or when an officer reasonably believes recording may assist with prosecution, enhance safety, or for any other lawful purpose.

(3) Requirements for recording.--

(A) In general.--A Federal law enforcement officer shall begin recording for an enforcement or investigative stop when the officer determines an enforcement stop is necessary and shall continue until the enforcement action has been completed and the subject of the enforcement or investigative stop or the officer has left the scene.

(B) Activation with lights.--A Federal law enforcement officer shall begin recording when patrol vehicle emergency lights are activated or when they would otherwise be activated if not for the need to conceal the presence of law enforcement, and shall continue until the reason for the activation ceases to exist, regardless of whether the emergency lights are no longer activated.

(C) Permissible recording.--A Federal law enforcement officer may begin recording if the officer reasonably believes recording may assist with prosecution, enhance safety, or for any other lawful purpose; and shall continue until the reason for recording ceases to exist.

(4) Enforcement or investigative stops.--A Federal law enforcement officer shall record any enforcement or investigative stop. Audio recording shall terminate upon release of the violator and prior to initiating a separate criminal investigation.

(c) Retention of Recordings.--Recordings made on in-car video camera recording medium shall be retained for a storage period of at least 90 days. Under no circumstances shall any recording made on in-car video camera recording medium be altered or erased prior to the expiration of the designated storage period. Upon completion of the storage period, the recording medium may be erased and reissued for operational use unless otherwise ordered or if designated for evidentiary or training purposes.

(d) Accessibility of Recordings.--Audio or video recordings made pursuant to this section shall be available under the applicable provisions of section 552a of title 5, United States Code. Only recorded portions of the audio recording or video recording medium applicable to the request will be available for inspection or copying.

(e) Maintenance Required.--The agency shall ensure proper care and maintenance of in-car video camera recording equipment and recording medium. An officer operating a patrol vehicle must immediately document and notify the appropriate person of any technical difficulties, failures, or problems with the in-car video camera recording equipment or recording medium. Upon receiving notice, every reasonable effort shall be made to correct and repair any of the in-car video camera recording equipment or recording medium and determine if it is in the public interest to permit the use of the patrol vehicle.

SEC. 374. FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.

No camera or recording device authorized or required to be used under this part may be equipped with or employ facial recognition technology, and footage from such a camera or recording device may not be subjected to facial recognition technology.

SEC. 375. GAO STUDY.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study on Federal law enforcement officer training, vehicle pursuits, use of force, and interaction with citizens, and submit a report on such study to--

(1) the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate;

(2) the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the House of Representatives; and

(3) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.

SEC. 376. REGULATIONS.

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

SEC. 377. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

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

PART 2--POLICE CAMERA ACT

SEC. 381. SHORT TITLE.

This part may be cited as the ``Police Creating Accountability by Making Effective Recording Available Act of 2021'' or the ``Police CAMERA Act of 2021''.

SEC. 382. LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY-WORN CAMERA REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Use of Funds Requirement.--Section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153(a)), as amended by section 334, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(10) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an application, the applicant will use not less than 5 percent of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to develop policies and protocols in compliance with part OO.''.

(b) Requirements.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``PART OO--LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY-WORN CAMERAS AND RECORDED DATA

``SEC. 3051. USE OF GRANT FUNDS.

``(a) In General.--Grant amounts described in paragraph

(10) of section 502(a) of this title--

``(1) shall be used--

``(A) to purchase or lease body-worn cameras for use by State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers (as defined in section 2503);

``(B) for expenses related to the implementation of a body- worn camera program in order to deter excessive force, improve accountability and transparency of use of force by law enforcement officers, assist in responding to complaints against law enforcement officers, and improve evidence collection; and

``(C) to implement policies or procedures to comply with the requirements described in subsection (b); and

``(2) may not be used for expenses related to facial recognition technology.

``(b) Requirements.--A recipient of a grant under subpart 1 of part E of this title shall--

``(1) establish policies and procedures in accordance with the requirements described in subsection (c) before law enforcement officers use of body-worn cameras;

``(2) adopt recorded data collection and retention protocols as described in subsection (d) before law enforcement officers use of body-worn cameras;

``(3) make the policies and protocols described in paragraphs (1) and (2) available to the public; and

``(4) comply with the requirements for use of recorded data under subsection (f).

``(c) Required Policies and Procedures.--A recipient of a grant under subpart 1 of part E of this title shall--

``(1) develop with community input and publish for public view policies and protocols for--

``(A) the safe and effective use of body-worn cameras;

``(B) the secure storage, handling, and destruction of recorded data collected by body-worn cameras;

``(C) protecting the privacy rights of any individual who may be recorded by a body-worn camera;

``(D) the release of any recorded data collected by a body- worn camera in accordance with the open records laws, if any, of the State; and

``(E) making recorded data available to prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other officers of the court in accordance with subparagraph (E); and

``(2) conduct periodic evaluations of the security of the storage and handling of the body-worn camera data.

``(d) Recorded Data Collection and Retention Protocol.--The recorded data collection and retention protocol described in this paragraph is a protocol that--

``(1) requires--

``(A) a law enforcement officer who is wearing a body-worn camera to provide an explanation if an activity that is required to be recorded by the body-worn camera is not recorded;

``(B) a law enforcement officer who is wearing a body-worn camera to obtain consent to be recorded from a crime victim or witness before interviewing the victim or witness;

``(C) the collection of recorded data unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement purpose be minimized to the greatest extent practicable;

``(D) the system used to store recorded data collected by body-worn cameras to log all viewing, modification, or deletion of stored recorded data and to prevent, to the greatest extent practicable, the unauthorized access or disclosure of stored recorded data;

``(E) any law enforcement officer be prohibited from accessing the stored data without an authorized purpose; and

``(F) the law enforcement agency to collect and report statistical data on--

``(i) incidences of use of force, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, and age of the victim;

``(ii) the number of complaints filed against law enforcement officers;

``(iii) the disposition of complaints filed against law enforcement officers;

``(iv) the number of times camera footage is used for evidence collection in investigations of crimes; and

``(v) any other additional statistical data that the Director determines should be collected and reported;

``(2) allows an individual to file a complaint with a law enforcement agency relating to the improper use of body-worn cameras; and

``(3) complies with any other requirements established by the Director.

``(e) Reporting.--Statistical data required to be collected under subsection (d)(1)(D) shall be reported to the Director, who shall--

``(1) establish a standardized reporting system for statistical data collected under this program; and

``(2) establish a national database of statistical data recorded under this program.

``(f) Use or Transfer of Recorded Data.--

``(1) In general.--Recorded data collected by an entity receiving a grant under a grant under subpart 1 of part E of this title from a body-worn camera shall be used only in internal and external investigations of misconduct by a law enforcement agency or officer, if there is reasonable suspicion that a recording contains evidence of a crime, or for limited training purposes. The Director shall establish rules to ensure that the recorded data is used only for the purposes described in this paragraph.

``(2) Prohibition on transfer.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), an entity receiving a grant under subpart 1 of part E of this title may not transfer any recorded data collected by the entity from a body-worn camera to another law enforcement or intelligence agency.

``(3) Exceptions.--

``(A) Criminal investigation.--An entity receiving a grant under subpart 1 of part E of this title may transfer recorded data collected by the entity from a body-worn camera to another law enforcement agency or intelligence agency for use in a criminal investigation if the requesting law enforcement or intelligence agency has reasonable suspicion that the requested data contains evidence relating to the crime being investigated.

``(B) Civil rights claims.--An entity receiving a grant under subpart 1 of part E of this title may transfer recorded data collected by the law enforcement agency from a body-worn camera to another law enforcement agency for use in an investigation of the violation of any right, privilege, or immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

``(g) Audit and Assessment.--

``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this part, the Director of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management shall perform an assessment of the use of funds under this section and the policies and protocols of the grantees.

``(2) Reports.--Not later than September 1 of each year, beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of this part, each recipient of a grant under subpart 1 of part E of this title shall submit to the Director of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management a report that--

``(A) describes the progress of the body-worn camera program; and

``(B) contains recommendations on ways in which the Federal Government, States, and units of local government can further support the implementation of the program.

``(3) Review.--The Director of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management shall evaluate the policies and protocols of the grantees and take such steps as the Director of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management determines necessary to ensure compliance with the program.

``SEC. 3052. BODY-WORN CAMERA TRAINING TOOLKIT.

``(a) In General.--The Director shall establish and maintain a body-worn camera training toolkit for law enforcement agencies, academia, and other relevant entities to provide training and technical assistance, including best practices for implementation, model policies and procedures, and research materials.

``(b) Mechanism.--In establishing the toolkit required to under subsection (a), the Director may consolidate research, practices, templates, and tools that been developed by expert and law enforcement agencies across the country.

``SEC. 3053. STUDY.

``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Police CAMERA Act of 2021, the Director shall conduct a study on--

``(1) the efficacy of body-worn cameras in deterring excessive force by law enforcement officers;

``(2) the impact of body-worn cameras on the accountability and transparency of the use of force by law enforcement officers;

``(3) the impact of body-worn cameras on responses to and adjudications of complaints of excessive force;

``(4) the effect of the use of body-worn cameras on the safety of law enforcement officers on patrol;

``(5) the effect of the use of body-worn cameras on public safety;

``(6) the impact of body-worn cameras on evidence collection for criminal investigations;

``(7) issues relating to the secure storage and handling of recorded data from the body-worn cameras;

``(8) issues relating to the privacy of individuals and officers recorded on body-worn cameras;

``(9) issues relating to the constitutional rights of individuals on whom facial recognition technology is used;

``(10) issues relating to limitations on the use of facial recognition technology;

``(11) issues relating to the public's access to body-worn camera footage;

``(12) the need for proper training of law enforcement officers that use body-worn cameras;

``(13) best practices in the development of protocols for the safe and effective use of body-worn cameras;

``(14) a review of law enforcement agencies that found body-worn cameras to be unhelpful in the operations of the agencies; and

``(15) any other factors that the Director determines are relevant in evaluating the efficacy of body-worn cameras.

``(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date on which the study required under subsection (a) is completed, the Director shall submit to Congress a report on the study, which shall include any policy recommendations that the Director considers appropriate.''.

TITLE IV--CLOSING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSENT LOOPHOLE

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Closing the Law Enforcement Consent Loophole Act of 2021''.

SEC. 402. PROHIBITION ON ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTS WHILE ACTING

UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

(a) In General.--Section 2243 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in the section heading, by adding at the end the following: ``or by any person acting under color of law'';

(2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections

(d) and (e), respectively;

(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:

``(c) Of an Individual by Any Person Acting Under Color of Law.--

``(1) In general.--Whoever, acting under color of law, knowingly engages in a sexual act with an individual, including an individual who is under arrest, in detention, or otherwise in the actual custody of any Federal law enforcement officer, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `sexual act' has the meaning given the term in section 2246.''; and

(4) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, by adding at the end the following:

``(3) In a prosecution under subsection (c), it is not a defense that the other individual consented to the sexual act.''.

(b) Definition.--Section 2246 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;

(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:

``(7) the term `Federal law enforcement officer' has the meaning given the term in section 115.''.

(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 109A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by amending the item related to section 2243 to read as follows:

``2243. Sexual abuse of a minor or ward or by any person acting under color of law.''.

SEC. 403. ENACTMENT OF LAWS PENALIZING ENGAGING IN SEXUAL

ACTS WHILE ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

(a) In General.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year after the date of enactment of this Act, in the case of a State or unit of local government that does not have in effect a law described in subsection (b), if that State or unit of local government that would otherwise receive funds under the COPS grant program, that State or unit of local government shall not be eligible to receive such funds. In the case of a multi- jurisdictional or regional consortium, if any member of that consortium is a State or unit of local government that does not have in effect a law described in subsection (b), if that consortium would otherwise receive funds under the COPS grant program, that consortium shall not be eligible to receive such funds.

(b) Description of Law.--A law described in this subsection is a law that--

(1) makes it a criminal offense for any person acting under color of law of the State or unit of local government to engage in a sexual act with an individual, including an individual who is under arrest, in detention, or otherwise in the actual custody of any law enforcement officer; and

(2) prohibits a person charged with an offense described in paragraph (1) from asserting the consent of the other individual as a defense.

(c) Reporting Requirement.--A State or unit of local government that receives a grant under the COPS grant program shall submit to the Attorney General, on an annual basis, information on--

(1) the number of reports made to law enforcement agencies in that State or unit of local government regarding persons engaging in a sexual act while acting under color of law during the previous year; and

(2) the disposition of each case in which sexual misconduct by a person acting under color of law was reported during the previous year.

SEC. 404. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) Report by Attorney General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report containing--

(1) the information required to be reported to the Attorney General under section 403(b); and

(2) information on--

(A) the number of reports made, during the previous year, to Federal law enforcement agencies regarding persons engaging in a sexual act while acting under color of law; and

(B) the disposition of each case in which sexual misconduct by a person acting under color of law was reported.

(b) Report by GAO.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report on any violations of section 2243(c) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 402, committed during the 1-year period covered by the report.

SEC. 405. DEFINITION.

In this title, the term ``sexual act'' has the meaning given the term in section 2246 of title 18, United States Code.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such a provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the application of the remaining provisions of this Act to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 502. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed--

(1) to limit legal or administrative remedies under section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983), section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12601), title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.), or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.);

(2) to affect any Federal, State, or Tribal law that applies to an Indian Tribe because of the political status of the Tribe; or

(3) to waive the sovereign immunity of an Indian Tribe without the consent of the Tribe.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio

(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

General Leave

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1280.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, last summer, millions of Americans all across the country took to the streets to demand fundamental change in the culture of law enforcement and to call for meaningful accountability for officers who commit misconduct.

The catalyst for these protests was the tragic and brutal death of George Floyd. None of us can forget the image of that officer's knee pinned to his neck for nearly 8 agonizing minutes, or the sound of his anguished pleas of ``I can't breathe'' that were ignored until his final breath was taken from him.

After his death, the world awoke to daily indignities, and sometimes the brutality, that too many people--disproportionately Black, Latinx, and indigenous people, people living in poverty, and people with disabilities--face in their interactions with law enforcement throughout the country.

We value and respect the many brave and honorable police officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect us and our communities. We know that most law enforcement officers do their jobs with dignity, selflessness, and honor, and they are deserving of our respect and gratitude for all they do to keep us safe. But we must also acknowledge that there are too many exceptions.

The reality for too many Americans, especially many Black Americans, is that police officers are perceived as a threat to their liberties; to their dignity; and, too often, to their safety. Sadly, our country's history of racism and racially motivated violence continues to haunt our Nation.

We see it in the rates of COVID deaths, in our system of mass incarceration, and in the vast chasm of economic inequality, all of which fall disproportionately on the backs of African Americans. And we see it in the harassment and excessive force that many people of color routinely experience by law enforcement.

That is why we must act today. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would allow for meaningful accountability in cases of police misconduct. It also effectively bans choke holds, ends racial and religious profiling, ends no-knock warrants in drug cases, and limits the militarization of local policing.

It encourages departments to meet a gold standard in training and other best practices to reduce police bias and violence. It requires significant data collection, including the first-ever national database on police-misconduct incidents to prevent the movement of dangerous officers from department to department.

In addition, this legislation creates a process to reimagine how public safety could work in a truly equitable and just way in each community.

Last summer, within weeks of the protests that galvanized the Nation, the House passed the legislation before us today. Unfortunately, the pleas for justice that rang out in the streets fell on deaf ears in the Senate.

Since then, over 600 more people--disproportionately people of color--have been killed by law enforcement officers.

The time for action is now.

I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass) for crafting this bold, yet responsible, legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), a retired police officer.

Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

With something as important as police reform, it is important to garner many perspectives. The JUSTICE Act, legislation Senator Scott and I introduced, is a product of my perspective as a law enforcement officer from Minnesota and Senator Scott's perspective as a Black man from South Carolina.

The JUSTICE Act increases body cameras and implements duty to intervene and deescalation training. It improves hiring and recruitment practices. It reinvigorates the principles of community policing to rebuild the relationships between law enforcement officers and the communities that they serve.

The JUSTICE Act, which received bipartisan support last Congress, includes several critical provisions that are supported by Democrats: the Walter Scott Notification Act, the National Criminal Justice Commission Act, and the Closing the Law Enforcement Consent Loophole Act. It even includes legislation that Vice President Harris introduced, the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act.

Unfortunately, we are not considering the JUSTICE Act today. We are, instead, once again, exploring political gamesmanship through H.R. 1280.

Now, when we voted on this legislation last year, the Democrats knew it was dead upon passage, but my good friends and I in the Problem Solvers Caucus decided that this conversation was too important to let go. So we worked for months with Representatives from both sides of the aisle, with Representatives from the Congressional Black Caucus, with Representatives from law enforcement and legal backgrounds, on areas where we could find compromise between the Justice in Policing Act and my bill, the JUSTICE Act.

We discussed no-knock warrants, the 1033 program, use of force, record retention, and so much more. We were making such great headway. I truly believed that we could have put together a bipartisan package of reforms for our American communities that have been calling for change.

Unfortunately, the other side walked away. As the election drew near, the priorities of my Democratic colleagues shifted. Their fight to retain power became more important than providing police reform for the American people.

So now we are here again, Mr. Speaker, to vote on the exact same bill without a single change; a bill that has zero input from Republicans, zero input or support from our law enforcement community. And I will repeat that. Zero input or support from our law enforcement community.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that will, no doubt, make our communities less safe. We all want police reform and we all want change, but until such time as we work together, this legislation is just another messaging bill from my Democrat colleagues.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago today, Rodney King was viciously beaten by police officers in Los Angeles. It would be the first time the world would witness what African Americans had been organizing, marching, and trying to change for over 100 years.

Personally, I was hopeful that once everyone saw what happens in Black communities, policing in America would change. I was certain no one would deny what they saw with their own eyes and that the officers would be convicted. But they were acquitted. Some were even hired by other police departments.

The sad truth was, when people told their stories of abuse or even murder at the hands of police officers, they were simply not believed. The story was always the same: I was in fear of my life. I thought they had a gun. The person was resisting arrest. The individual attempted to assault me.

That is all that was needed for the beating or murder to be discounted, dismissed. The individuals' lives had little value.

Even children. These are children here. This is an 8-year-old, a 10-

year-old, a mother, and another child placed on the ground because the mother was suspected of stealing a car.

Several years after Rodney King's beating, cell phone cameras were invented. It has taken technology and active citizen involvement to document and expose this reality. And now there are many tapes, many examples of individuals being shot and killed by officers, yet transformation of policing in America has still not happened.

Passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act will be a critical first step--just a first step--to transform policing in America. The bill raises the standards for policing and holds those officers accountable who fail to uphold the ethic of protecting and serving their communities.

{time} 1830

Now, I know that change is difficult, but I am certain that police officers who risk their lives every day are concerned about their profession, and they don't work in an environment where they are chastised for intervening when they see a fellow officer abuse a citizen or use deadly force when it is not necessary. And I am certain that police officers want to make sure that they are trained in the best practices in policing.

To support officers, this legislation will create the first-ever national accreditation standards for the operation of police departments, set national standards for officers, and establish best practices in training, hiring, deescalation strategies, and bystander duty.

For example, if officers had better training, maybe they would understand that just because someone can verbally express ``I can't breathe,'' does not mean they are faking and the officer can continue to press on the person's chest, back, or neck. And despite our best intentions, there will be some officers who cross over the line.

Mr. Speaker, that is why this bill also includes strong accountability measures, both as a matter of simple justice, and to keep unfit officers off the street. A profession where you have the power to kill should be a profession that requires highly trained officers who are accountable to the public. That is what this bill accomplishes.

Police officers are the first to say it is unfair that they are not trained to be social workers or healthcare providers.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, the Justice in Policing Act reinvests in our communities.

If this legislation had been the law of the land several years ago, Eric Garner and George Floyd would be alive today, because the bill bans choke holds.

If the bill had been law last year, Breonna Taylor would not have been shot to death in her sleep, because no-knock warrants for drug offenses would have been illegal.

And if a national registry had been in effect, it would have been revealed that the officer who killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice--

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed earlier this week that the Justice in Policing Act contains an unfunded mandate by requiring onerous data collection reporting from State and local law enforcement. This includes granular data collection on such basic law enforcement activities, like traffic stops. CBO estimates that this unfunded mandate placed on State and local law enforcement will cost several hundred million dollars.

The consequences of H.R. 1280 are clear. It will drain resources away from important public safety activities. Instead, law enforcement officers will have to spend their time reporting data to Washington, D.C., from behind a desk. Make no mistake. This bill defunds the police.

Additionally, any Member who is opposed to defunding the police should be opposing this bill. This legislation will also lower the mens rea standard when charging an officer with criminal misconduct. It removes qualified immunity, which will result in an ineffectual police force and leave our communities vulnerable to crime, and it also severely limits the Department of Defense's 1033 program.

Mr. Speaker, but make no mistake, regardless of whatever else you may feel about this bill, this bill defunds police. We can never forget that. If you oppose defunding the police, you should be opposing this bill, like I am.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the tragic death of George Floyd has awakened the Nation, the world.

Last summer, in response to a call for action from righteous protestors across the Nation, we had to stand up. And we know that 8 minutes and 46 seconds are printed and imprinted in the brains of those around the world. There is no defunding of the police. It is standing up the police and the community.

Today, we are honored that the George Floyd family did not turn to bitterness, but they turned to justice. Their parents, Larcenia and George; his daughter, Gianna; his siblings, Philonise, Zsa Zsa Williams, LaTonya Floyd, Rodney Floyd, Bridgett Floyd, Terrence Floyd, and a nephew, Brandon Williams.

We know that we will be ending racial profiling now. We know that we will have qualified immunity for justice in the courts. We know that there will be training on racial bias. We will ban no-knock. We will ban choke holds. We will make sure that we end the racial profiling that caused George to come out of a grocery store and have someone's knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the world has stood up and justice is about to be rained on us.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, as an original cosponsor of the legislation, and the author of several of its key legislative provisions, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act of 2021, which marks a defining turning point in our country.

Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that any questions that there continues to exist today racial double-standards, disparities, and system racism in policing and the administration of justice were conclusively laid to rest by what social scientists would regard as a ``natural experiment'' that took place in Washington, D.C., beginning in the summer and culminating with the January 6, 2021, insurrection and siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump seditionists incited by the 45th President of the United States.

Mass protests and political rallies took place in Washington, D.C., started May 29, 2020, four days after George Floyd died in Minnesota after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck for more than eight minutes.

By the millions, Americans took to the streets in protest to affirm that no longer will the people of this country tolerate or acquiesce in horrible policing practices that include excessive and unnecessary uses of lethal force that has diminished community trust of policing practices across the country and has angered and terrified communities of color who are overwhelmingly and disproportionately its innocent victims.

Within days of the demonstrations, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr announced that multiple law enforcement agencies, including the National Guard, Secret Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation, would ``flood the zone'' in D.C.

Thousands of law enforcement officials, armed with tear gas, rubber bullets and firearms were deployed to protect the city.

Hundreds of people were arrested, D.C. police records show.

More than 300 were arrested on June 1, 2020, the day Attorney General Barr ordered law enforcement to forcefully clear peaceful protesters from a perimeter near the White House, making room for President Trump to pose for cameras while waving a Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church.

It was the largest number of arrests recorded for any day during the summer of events.

Across the nation, law enforcement made an estimated 14,000 arrests in 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests in the summer of 2020, according to the Washington Post.

Following the November 3, 2020, election of Joe Eiden and running mate Kamala Harris, large groups of Trump supporters held rallies in the city, where they clashed with counter-protesters.

Police made 20 arrests during the so-called Million MAGA March on November 14, 2020, an event in which Trump-supporters, including White nationalists, far-right extremist groups, and conservative politicians gathered in D.C. to protest the election results.

And, incredibly, only 61 arrests were made of rioters, who were overwhelming white and who used violence, that stormed the Capitol on January 6, an attack that claimed the lives of at least six persons, injured hundreds of others, caused horrific damage to property and national treasures, and inflicted emotional scars that will not heal for generations.

But most of these arrests are related to charges involving curfew violations--D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser announced a 6 p.m. curfew, though mobs had broken into the Capitol hours earlier, around 1:30 p.m.

There were only four non-curfew-related arrests, compared to 40 non-

curfew-related arrests during Black Lives Matter protests on June 1, 2020.

Mr. Speaker, the horrifying killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 by a Minneapolis police office shocked and awakened the moral consciousness of the nation.

Untold millions saw the terrifying last 8:46 of life drained from a Black man, George Floyd, taking his last breaths face down in the street with his neck under the knee of a police officer who, along with his three cohorts, was indifferent to his cries for help and pleas that he ``can't breathe.''

In direct response, for past several months civil protests against police brutality have occurred nightly in cities large and small all across the nation.

These protests were a direct reaction to the horrific killing of George Floyd but are most motivated by a deep-seated anger and frustration to the separate and unequal justice African Americans receive at the hands of too many law enforcement officers.

The civil disobedience witnessed nightly in the streets of America were also in memory of countless acts of the inequality and cruelty visited upon young African American men and women no longer with us in body but forever with us in memory.

Beloved souls like Breanna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky; Eric Garner and Sean Bell in New York City; 12-year old Tamir Rice in Cleveland; and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

They remember the senseless killings as well of Ahmaud Arbery and Trayvon Martin by self-appointed vigilantes.

Stephon Clark, was an unarmed 22-year-old African American male from Sacramento, California, who was shot 23 times and killed by two uniformed members of the Sacramento Police Department on Sunday afternoon, March 18, 2018, in his grandmother's backyard, leaving behind two small children because police officers claim that he had a gun but no weapon was found at the scene, only a cell phone.

In August 2019, Elijah McClain, a 23-year-old African American man, was simply listening to music while walking home from a convenience store when he was stopped without basis by officers of the Aurora, Colorado Police Department, put into a carotid hold and given multiple doses of ketamine, which caused cardiac arrest from which he fell into a coma and died three days later.

And the continuing need for their activism was reflected in the recent outrage, which began on June 12, 2020, and ended in the senseless slaughter of Rayshard Brooks, who was simply sleeping in his car at a local Wendy's restaurant, by a uniformed officer of the Atlanta Police Department.

It was reflected again on August 23, 2020, when a Kenosha Police Department officer shot Jacob S. Blake, a 29-year-old black man, in the back seven times--yes seven--as he attempted to enter his SUV where three of his young sons were in the back seat.

We know the pain and heartbreak in my home state of Texas and the City of Houston where Robbie Tolan's promising Major League Baseball was career was cut short after being shot by Bellaire Police Department officer in the front yard of his parents' home.

And Sandra Bland, a 28-year-old African American female who was arrested after a traffic stop just outside of Houston, Texas, and found dead in a Waller County jail cell three days later.

Or Pamela Turner, an unarmed 44-year old African American mother of three who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, who was killed outside her home in Baytown, Texas, by an officer of the Baytown Police Department, on Monday, May 13, 2019, the day after Mother's Day.

Or Jordan Baker, an unarmed 26-year-old African American male from Houston, Texas, who was shot to death by an off-duty uniformed member of the Houston Police Department in the parking lot of a Harris County shopping mall on January 16, 2014.

Or Danny Ray Thomas, an unarmed 34-year-old African American male, who was shot to death by a uniformed officer of the Harris County Sheriffs Department on March 22, 2018, in Houston, Texas.

Indeed, the history goes back much further, past Amidou Diallo in New York City, past the Central Park Five, past Emmitt Till, past the racist abuse of law enforcement power during the struggle for civil rights and equal treatment.

Mr. Speaker, the times we are in demand that action be taken and that is precisely what my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, on this committee, and Congressional Democrats did in introducing H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.

And we are taking the next bold action today in voting to pass this legislation and send it to the Senate and on to the White House for presidential signature and enactment.

I support this bold legislation not just as a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, who also served on the House Working Group on Police Strategies, but also a mother of a young African American male who knows the anxiety that African American mothers feel until they can hug their sons and daughters who return home safely, and on behalf of all those relatives and friends who grieve over the loss a loved one whose life and future was wrongly and cruelly interrupted or ended by mistreatment at the hands of the police.

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 is designed to destroy the pillars of systemic racism in policing practices that has victimized communities of color, and especially African Americans for decades, is overdue, too long overdue.

This legislation puts the Congress of the United States on record against racial profiling in policing and against the excessive, unjustified, and discriminatory use of lethal and force by law enforcement officers against persons of color.

The legislation means no longer will employment of practices that encourage systemic mistreatment of persons because of their race be ignored or tolerated.

With our vote today to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, the government of the United States is declaring firmly, forcefully, and unequivocally that Black Lives Matter.

It is true all lives matter, they always have.

But that Black lives matter too, and in so many other areas of civic life, this nation has not always lived up to its promise but that the promise is worthy of fulfilling.

Every African American parent, and every African America child, knows all too well `The Talk' and the importance of abiding by the rules for surviving interactions with the police.

While many police officers take this responsibility seriously and strive to treat all persons equally and with respect, their efforts are too often undermined by some of their colleagues who abuse the enormous trust and confidence placed in them.

And systemically racist systems and practices left in place can corrupt even the most virtuous police officers.

So, the most important criminal justice reforms needed to improve the criminal justice system are those that will increase public confidence and build trust and mutual respect between law enforcement and the communities they swear an oath and are willing to risk their lives to protect and serve.

That is the overriding purpose and aim of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, which contains numerous provisions to weed out and eliminate systemic racism in police practices.

Specifically, this legislation holds police accountable in our courts by:

Amending the mens rea requirement in federal law (18 U.S.C. Section 242) to prosecute police misconduct from ``willfulness'' to a

``recklessness'' standard;

Reforming qualified immunity so that individuals are not barred from recovering damages when police violate their constitutional rights;

Incentivizing state attorneys general to conduct pattern and practice investigations and improving the use of pattern and practice investigations at the federal level by granting the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division subpoena power;

Incentivizing states to create independent investigative structures for police involved deaths; and

Creating best practices recommendations based on the Obama 21st Century Policing Task force.

As recognized by scholars at Cato--the conservative think tank Cato--

the time has come to abolish qualified immunity.

According to Cato, ``qualified immunity is a legally baseless judicial invention'' that has ``proven unworkable as a matter of judicial doctrine,'' and ``routinely denies justice to the victims of egregious misconduct and undermines public accountability across the board, especially for members of law enforcement.''

I am particularly pleased that the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act includes the End Racial Profiling Now Act, which I introduced to ban the pernicious practice of racial profiling.

In addition, I am proud that this legislation includes as Title I, Subtitle B, the bipartisan and bicameral George Floyd Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act, which I introduced with Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado in the 116th Congress as H.R. 7100.

This legislation provides incentives for local police organizations to voluntarily adopt performance-based standards to ensure that incidents of deadly force or misconduct will be minimized through appropriate management and training protocols and properly investigated, should they occur.

The legislation directs the Department of Justice to work cooperatively with independent accreditation, law enforcement and community-based organizations to further develop and refine the accreditation standards and grants conditional authority to the Department of Justice to make grants to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of obtaining accreditation from certified law enforcement accreditation organizations.

As I have stated many times, direct action is vitally important but to be effective it must be accompanied by political, legislative, and governmental action, which is necessary because the strength and foundation of democratic government rests upon the consent and confidence of the governed.

Effective enforcement of the law and administration of justice requires the confidence of the community that the law will be enforced impartially and that all persons are treated equally without regard to race or ethnicity or religion or national origin.

As the great jurist Judge Learned Hand said: ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not ration justice.''

Equal justice is the proud promise America makes to all persons; the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 will help make that promise a lived reality for African Americans, who have not ever known it to be true in the area of community-police relations.

And when Black Lives Matter, then and only then can it truthfully be said that all lives matter.

Finally, let me say a few words in memory of the man whose sacrifice of his inalienable right to life has galvanized the world and awakened the sleeping giant of moral decency.

Mr. Speaker, let me pay tribute to the person for whom this legislation is named and to his family.

George Floyd, also known lovingly as ``Big Floyd,'' ``Perry,'' or

``The Gentle Giant,'' loved life, his family, friends, and community and throughout his life used his love of sports and music to leave a positive impact on this world.

Mr. Speaker, rather than giving in to bitterness and hate, the family of George Floyd has channeled the pain and heartbreak of the tragic loss of their beloved George into the creation of a force for good: The George Floyd Memorial Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit, to promote global awareness about racial injustice and provide opportunities for others to contribute to the unification of our communities and touch the world.

Let me thank each member of the Floyd family and list them by name: his parents, Larcenia Jones-Floyd and George Perry Floyd, Sr.; his daughter, Gianna Floyd; his siblings Philonise Floyd, Zsa Zsa Williams, LaTonya Floyd, Rodney Floyd, Bridget Floyd, Terrence Floyd; and nephew, Brandon ``WOO'' Williams.

Mr. Speaker, in Acts 2:23 of the Scriptures it is written that ``This man was handed over to you by God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.''

Duty calls us to to improve the quality of policing in America.

We cannot agitate for change one day and then allow things to remain the same, to allow wicked men to keep committing this crime against humanity.

This behavior did not begin with George Floyd; there is a 400-year history here, from slave patrols, to Jim Crow to Bull Connor to the modern-day lynching of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

But the good news is that right is on our side; God has stepped in.

In John 1:46 it is said, ``can anything good come out of Nazareth?''

When he was growing up, I am sure there were people who saw George Floyd and asked can anything good come out of the Third Ward of Houston?

We now know the answer is clearly yes.

George Floyd was here in service to God's divine plan.

And as his daughter Gianna said, her Daddy changed the world.

Thank you, George Floyd for what you have done for us, for helping us find our voice and our resolve.

We will not let you down; we will finish the job.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentlewoman just said that there was no defunding of the police. I would just point out Democrat-controlled cities around the country:

Austin, Texas, $150 million cut;

Baltimore, Maryland, $22 million;

Boston, $12 million;

Burlington, $1 million;

Columbus, $23 million;

Denver, $55 million;

Eureka, California, $1.2 million;

Hartford, $2 million;

Los Angeles, $175 million;

Madison, Wisconsin, $2 million;

Minneapolis, $8 million;

New York, $1 billion;

Norman, $865,000;

Oakland, $14.6 million;

Oklahoma City, $5.5 million;

Philadelphia, $33 million;

Portland, Oregon, $15 million;

Salt Lake City, $5.3 million;

San Francisco, $120 million;

Seattle, $69 million;

Washington, D.C., $15 million cut.

That is what Democrats have done over the last year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1280.

I spent the last week talking to law enforcement officers in Utah. These men and women are heroes. They are good, honest officers who risk their lives every day to keep us safe.

I asked them about H.R. 1280, and this is what they said:

``This will destroy public safety.''

``We haven't done anything to earn this type of distrust.''

``This will push good law enforcement out of the business.''

``Utah is an amazing place. We have the right people protecting us. Let's keep them here.''

Mr. Speaker, police reform is necessary. We need to give officers the tools they need to fairly enforce the law. But this legislation paints a target on the back of every police officer in America.

In Salt Lake City, we saw a 38 percent increase in homicides. At the same time, Salt Lake cut $5.3 million from the police department's budget. It should be no surprise that voluntary resignations doubled. This bill will make good officers flee the profession when we need them most.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats won't say this, but this bill simply defunds the police. Not in Utah's Fourth District; not now; not ever.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that this bill does not--all the cities that we talked about, it does not mention any cities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

I started my career as the legal adviser to the Memphis Police Department. There were many fine policemen, and most of them never used a choke hold, never used their gun, and operated admirably. Some did not.

The disproportionate share that African Americans have suffered from killings by police shows we need to act. You can't think about George Floyd being choked with a knee and killed for 8 minutes. You can't think of Eric Garner being wrestled down like a prize trophy animal and killed in Staten Island, or young Tamir Rice, shot without an officer taking a second to think about it.

Mr. Speaker, these deaths require us to act. This is not defund the police. This is reform the police and save human lives. We need to pass this bill today. We should have passed it 40 years ago when I was a police attorney. Pass it now.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to the efforts by you and your colleagues to defund our police.

This week we will be voting on H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. This bill is named after a man who was murdered by a police officer. The officer responsible should have never been allowed to don a badge and act on behalf of the agency sworn to protect its citizens. He should and is being held accountable.

Now, as a member of a first responder family, I can say definitively on behalf of our officers that there is absolutely nothing, nothing that a good cop hates more than a bad cop. And as the wife of a first responder, this issue could not be more personal to me.

Mr. Speaker, my husband serves our local community as a firefighter and a SWAT medic for our local sheriff's department. And next to me here today, you see one of his SWAT vests.

This is the same vest that he wore for 14 hours while on a massive manhunt for a man who had just been released from prison, who promptly raped and killed his girlfriend.

It is the same vest that he wore while responding to a man who had barricaded himself with weapons, threatening to kill his own children.

These are just some of the scenes that this vest and my husband have seen, like so many of our LEOs. But the real threat here is not the dangerous situations that my husband has seen in protecting his community, it is the fact that this bill--and by extension, you, Mr. Speaker--want to take this vest off my husband's back because, yes, what this bill does is take this kind of equipment off the backs of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues who are considering voting for this bill:

Are you waking up at 2 a.m. to respond to a gruesome murder?

Are you missing your children's birthday parties to respond to gang shootings?

There is absolutely room for us to improve. There is absolutely room and a necessity for us to do better. But the answer is not to defund the police. It is not the answer. What this bill ultimately does is defund the police.

You want a better trained, more responsive police force in your hometown? Fully fund the police. You say this is a reform bill, and I say that is BS.

Mr. Speaker, your own conference members have been advocating for the defunding of our local police officers, calling them names that I cannot and will not repeat here today. In fact, many of your members have made it a top priority of their platforms.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, George Floyd died under the knee of a police officer 302 days ago. In the time since then, 797 people--more than 2\1/2\ every day--have died during encounters with law enforcement.

Black Americans are 2\1/2\ times as likely as White Americans to be killed by the police. Police use of force is now the sixth-leading cause of death for young Black men in this country. This cannot continue. It is time to address systemic racism in policing.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will begin to do that. It ends choke holds. It will hold bad officers accountable, combat racial profiling, and demilitarize police departments. This bill is about ensuring accountability and restoring trust between law enforcement and their communities. Both the police and the community deserve that and will benefit from it.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

And I would say, there has been a lot of discussion about defunding the police. The only party in this Chamber defunding the police are the Republicans, who just voted against billions of dollars to support local and State government, first responders, police officers. We supported that. We are funding the police. They voted to defund it.

Mr. Speaker, this bill restores relationships between the police and the community, and I urge its passage.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez).

Mr. GIMENEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this egregious, so-called police reform bill. The process used to craft this bill is nonsense.

In a normal functioning Congress, the Speaker would bring together Republicans and Democrats to discuss ways to push needed police reforms. But in this dysfunctional Congress, we got a bill that strips our frontline police officers from qualified immunity, that will weaken and possibly destroy our communities' police forces.

Mr. Speaker, as mayor and sheriff of Miami-Dade County, and a former SWAT medic myself, I was actually responsible for ensuring my community was kept safe from lawlessness. I understand firsthand the importance of qualified immunity for police officers to carry out their jobs.

Officers perform vital tasks requiring split-second decisions under intense circumstances. Taking away qualified immunity will lead to police officers not taking the decisive actions and rendering it impossible for them to do their job. Without this security, officers will resign and deplete our police force, leaving our communities--the very ones who need a strong police force the most--less safe and costing the lives of countless Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this dangerous bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act and to say Black Lives Matter.

I rise for Charleena Lyles, Che Taylor, Manuel Ellis, Tommy Le, Tony McDade, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Atatiana Jefferson, Ezell Ford, Tanisha Anderson, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Philando Castile, Gabriella Nevarez, Botham Jean.

I rise for all of our Black siblings who have been killed by law enforcement, because there are far too many to say all of their names.

I rise for the Black Lives Matter protestors who were met with aggression, tear gas, and force while White domestic terrorists were met with none of these things.

I rise to answer the call of millions of people led by Black voices who have taken to the streets demanding transformative change.

I rise because that change begins today by once again passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

{time} 1845

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our Nation's law enforcement. Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God.

Mr. Speaker, since last summer, members of law enforcement have faced attacks and dangerous rhetoric, even from Members of this body. As officers put their lives on the line to protect all of us, our communities, and our families, we have seen nothing but dangerous attempts from the left to defund, dismantle, and disband the police even as we stand here today, surrounded by razor wire, the National Guard and increased police presence to protect you, but you don't want them to protect our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would end qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is only applicable when they follow their training and protocol and protects officers from being personally sued for official actions. If we repeal qualified immunity, we will not find anyone willing to serve as police officers because they can be sued out of everything they own for doing their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, if that is not enough, this bill would threaten our officers' physical safety by denying them protective gear and equipment. The Democrats and radical left are going to defund and dismantle departments and take away officers' liability protection for doing their job. Then they are going to take away their physical protection from harm. We will be lucky to have a police force in America in 10 years.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of our many officers in Georgia's Sixth Congressional District, here in the Capitol, and those nationwide who do all that they can to keep our families safe.

They have the trust of their communities and, as a result, are better at ensuring everyone's safety. These officers know the people that they serve. They see them as brothers, sisters, and neighbors. They serve with honor and respect the dignity of every citizen.

This bill is about making sure that every officer and every department is held to the same standard as has been set by the officers in my own district.

Mr. Speaker, by passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, we invest in our departments, end harmful profiling, and provide grants to communities finding new and innovative ways to improve safety.

This bill ensures all of our police officers have the resources to become our very best police officers, and that they are all working to make sure that every single one of us is safer.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, whenever the left takes control of local law enforcement, the result is predictable and catastrophic. They act to defund the police, deliberately withhold police protection from law-

abiding shopkeepers and citizens, declare sanctuaries for criminal illegal aliens, decline to charge criminals, and prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

Mr. Speaker, we are now suffering the result: skyrocketing homicides, shootings, and other violent crimes, preying most of all upon the decent citizens of our inner cities. Now, after their summer of love and lawlessness, look at the results. Their storefronts are boarded up. Their buildings are burned out. Their streets are increasingly surrendered to the lawless.

Frankly, the Democrats in Congress that have applauded these policies would not be my first choice to micromanage every police department across our country as this bill does; just saying.

The ultimate target of the left is not isolated abuses by law enforcement officers but, rather, law enforcement itself. As we can now see, without law enforcement, there is no law.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times the other side says that this bill will defund the police, it does not make it true.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it would be an irresponsible policy to defund the police. We are not for that.

Hear me. You can say it over and over and over again. It will be a lie. No matter how well it serves your political purposes, it will be a lie.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to thank Representative Bass and members of the Congressional Black Caucus for their leadership last year and now. I also want to thank my friend, Chairman Nadler, and the Judiciary Committee for their hard work.

I am proud to be an original sponsor. If I thought this defunded the police, I would not be for it. Now, that won't affect you and your debate, I understand that, any more than it affected you in recognizing the legitimacy of the Presidential election.

I am proud to be an original sponsor.

Mr. Speaker, in June of last year, the House passed this bill because we recognized that something had to change. Change could not wait. Change waited too long in the Jim Crow South. Change has waited too long throughout this country--North, East, West, and South.

Mr. Speaker, when we mournfully say the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Philando Castile, Freddie Gray, with a list that goes on and on and on and on, enough, my colleagues, enough.

We must change the psychology of how we treat people. I don't mean police alone. I mean all of us, but all of us don't carry guns. All of us have not been given extraordinary authority by the public we serve. Because we give certain people in this country extraordinary authority to take our freedom away and, yes, to take our lives away, we must ensure accountability for the use of that power, just as the voters ought to ensure accountability for the power that they give to us.

When we hear about African American parents having to teach their sons how to act during encounters with police so that they, too, don't become victims, it is time for change. When we feel the energy of many millions of Americans of every race, every faith, and every age taking peacefully to the streets in protest against injustice, we know that change must come now.

I know how you lament the use of violence. I saw that on January 6.

Mr. Speaker, peaceful demonstrations, Martin Luther King was locked up. Rosa Parks was locked up. For a crime? Of course, Parks sat in the front of the bus. That was illegal. As King said, an illegal law ought not to be obeyed.

Mr. Speaker, they paid the consequences. They had the courage and fortitude to do that.

That is why we took action last year, passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. This legislation addresses police choke holds like the kind that took George Floyd's life. Stand if you can justify that action.

Mr. Speaker, it addresses no-knock warrants like the one that led to the tragic and preventable death of Breonna Taylor. It would condition Federal funding and resources to police departments on ending racial profiling. Content of character, did we not learn that lesson? It is not the color of your skin, the cut of the cloth you wear, or the part in your hair.

Mr. Speaker, we ask them to follow best practices with that power and authority we have given them, best practices in police training that help ensure the rights of those who encounter police, as well as the safety of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also brings justice to victims and their families by facilitating, under appropriate circumstances, their ability to seek redress of grievances.

This bill is not only intended to protect people who encounter the police, but it is meant to help keep police safe as well, to help them do the difficult job of keeping their communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this body, I think I can safely say, who has attended more frequently the annual National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund ceremony. I am local, but I dare say that no Member in this body has attended that more frequently, been more supportive of law enforcement, or been more supportive of my local sheriffs and police departments. They are critically important. Of course, we don't want to defund them. We have to have a safe society if democracy is going to prevail. That is why we have law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from so many law enforcement officials who are deeply concerned about misconduct and racial bias in policing, just as each one of us ought to be concerned about a politician who commits a crime. Why? It reflects on all of us. All of those politicians are crooks. Somebody out there is saying amen.

That is why this is important, because there are so many hundreds of thousands of honest, hardworking, courageous, dedicated police officers, sheriffs, and constables in this country.

Mr. Speaker, most police officers are good and decent men and women, serving with honor. They want to know that their ranks are free from those who would apply bias and sow mistrust that endangers their and their colleagues' safety. This is just the beginning of a larger effort to reform policing, which will require the Senate and White House to work with us to ensure that victims of misconduct and their families get the justice they deserve, while police departments have the support, the funding, if you will, they need to keep our communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, sadly, when we passed this bill last year, the Republican-controlled Senate refused even to consider it. They were in charge. They put no bill of their own on the floor. I apologize. I retract that. Mr. Jordan is correct.

Now, however, with this Democratic Senate majority, I hope I can see action, work with Senator Scott, and come to a resolution, because this problem will not go away if we don't help it. We will not save lives if we don't act.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a top priority for Senate Democrats, as well as for President Biden and Vice President Harris. So, I hope that we will not only see the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act pass the House today but also be signed into law this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this is a necessary bill to respond to a crisis throughout our country, certainly not by every member of law enforcement, but by the minority of law enforcement officers, just as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are a credit to the service in this House, not all, but the overwhelming majority.

Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill. Let's act for justice.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to each other.

{time} 1900

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader just said: Enough, my colleagues, enough.

I couldn't agree more.

Last summer, Democrats called for unrest in the streets. They raised bail money for rioters. They called antifa a myth. They voted and pushed for defunding the police all across this country.

Guess what? When you call for unrest in the streets while there is unrest in the streets, guess what happens?

You get more unrest in the streets.

When you raise money to bail out rioters, guess what happens?

You get more rioters.

When you call antifa a myth, guess what happens?

You get more attacks on property and on people.

Guess what also happens when you call for defunding the police?

You get more crime.

And when you fail to condemn violence--all violence, whether it happens on January 6 or last summer--you get more violence.

Everyone understands that. Everyone should understand that, but it seems Democrats don't.

We had a bill in the House, just like Senator Scott's bill, and Representative Stauber was the sponsor. Last year, when we had a markup, we offered 12 amendments in committee. They wouldn't take any of them. Some of the amendments, the Democrats actually supported them. But nope, nope, got to be this bill.

They didn't want to work with us to deal with the real concern, because we all know what happened to Mr. Floyd was as wrong as wrong could be. We were willing to work, but, no, they wouldn't take any of our amendments and said the things they said last summer. We should work together on this, but they don't want to. They don't want to do it.

They want their own bill. They don't want Republicans to vote for it. They want to play politics. We would actually like to solve the problem. We would actually like to solve the problem.

You know what else happens when you call for defunding the police?

The police retire. There is a 72 percent increase in retirement of police officers in New York City alone. Think of what it is like around the country. That is what happens when you send the message that Democrats sent all last summer. It is wrong. We shouldn't stand for it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, Officer Tiffany-Victoria Enriquez, Officer Kaulike Kalama, Sheriff Sheldon Gordon Whiteman, Officer Katherine Mary Thyne, I could go on and on 113 times with the names of law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty, who were killed last year in 2020--113.

And we are on the floor of the House of Representatives with a bill gutting the qualified immunity that helps protect our law enforcement officers without so much as a hearing, without so much as coming back to talk to us and work with us since last June.

Why?

Because this is all political. This is all political.

We talk about defunding. I am from Austin, Texas; $150 million cut from the police budget there.

And what did my Democrat colleagues do last Friday?

Jammed through $500 billion for State and local governments, funding the very Democratic cities that are gutting our law enforcement officers, taking away what they need to be able to exist.

And with what happened in Austin, a 50 percent increase in murder rate. We lost the greatest cadet class we had.

This bill is a sham. We should oppose it.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times Republicans may say the contrary, Democrats have never called for defunding the police.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, we respect every single officer who has died in the line of duty.

The question is: Why don't you respect those Black and Latino individuals who were shot in the back, choked to death, beaten nearly unconscious, or have a knee to the neck, strangling the life out of them for 8 minutes and 46 seconds? Why don't you respect them?

That is what the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is all about.

We respect police officers, those who protect and serve; but we have a challenge with police violence, police brutality. The police abuse of force cannot be denied, video after video after video. Don't believe us, believe your own eyes.

Thirty years ago, Rodney King was beaten on this very day, and we thought it would be different. But 30 years later, nothing has changed in terms of accountability and reining in those officers who cross the line.

It is time to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, and do it now.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores the harm that anti-law enforcement rhetoric and unchecked violence have inflicted on our communities and our police.

Since last year, we have seen businesses and communities terrorized, burned, and looted by criminal gangs and thugs, while some elected officials justified the violence, called for defunding the police, and moved to tie the hands of law enforcement. In essence, lawlessness prevailed and accountability failed. This legislation doubles down on that failed policy.

In my home State of Wisconsin, we watched city officials in Madison, Kenosha, and Milwaukee stand by as violent rioters destroyed property, monuments, shops, and livelihoods. Sheriffs in my home State tell me they are having significant retention and recruiting issues. This will only exacerbate that. It is a back door to the misguided defund the police efforts. Defunding the police does not make the police safer.

Mr. Speaker, this bill empowers criminals, while stripping cops of the tools they need to do their jobs and due process guaranteed to them by the Constitution. It exposes law enforcement officers and their families to potential retribution by criminals.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Ms. OMAR. Mr. Speaker, I, like so many in my community of Minneapolis, are still traumatized. I watched horrified for 8 minutes and 46 seconds as George Floyd's life was taken from him, another innocent Black man murdered by the police in our community.

Time and time again, we have witnessed the people who are sworn to protect our communities abuse their power. My city is not an outlier, but, rather, an example of the inequalities our country has struggled with for centuries. Brutality against unarmed Black men and women is not a new phenomenon.

Today, we find ourselves at a crossroad. Will we have the moral courage to pursue justice and secure meaningful change? Or will we succumb to this moment?

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again: about to vote on a divisive bill being pushed through by the majority without any Republican input. Disguised as accountability, this bill hinders law enforcement's ability to do their jobs, limits the readiness of law enforcement, and demonizes an entire profession for the actions of a few.

A bill from my Minnesota colleague, Mr. Stauber, a former police officer himself, accomplishes many of the aims of this bill before us today, and has bipartisan support from the stakeholders involved; but Democrats rejected it, picking partisanship over real reform to help and improve law enforcement.

We do not deny there is work to be done, but the path to getting it done is working together to ensure that law enforcement developed the necessary tools to keep our communities safe and protect the rights of people they serve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to work on a bill that will really help law enforcement and the citizens.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, any man's death diminishes me. We will never forget, the world will never forget, as we watched as a police officer knelt on George Floyd's neck for more than 8 minutes.

George Floyd cried out for his mother, saying ``Mama, mama, mama, mama, mama, mama, mama, I can't breathe. I love you. Tell my kids I love them. I am dead.''

As he was murdered by an officer sworn to protect and serve, Americans of all races and backgrounds flooded the streets all across this Nation, demanding long overdue accountability so that no one has to live in fear of the police.

They demanded that we recognize George Floyd's death and the deaths of so many others at the hands of the police. These killings have left the Black community and, much more importantly, our entire community traumatized and scared. Wounds cannot heal without accountability.

This is not an anti-police bill. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is for Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, Elijah McClain, and so many more.

Any man's death diminishes me.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1280 and defunding the police.

When vandalism and violence plagued cities across the country last summer, our law enforcement officers were the thin blue line protecting us. The violence reached communities from New York City to Portland. It even hit places in my district, and we saw our local law enforcement act heroically.

Unfortunately, as both the son and father of law enforcement officials, this bill is a step in the wrong direction. The bill substantially reduces due process for police officers, restricts access to needed equipment, and makes it more difficult to get critical funding.

Our law enforcement officers need more funding, not less. More funding will help our officers get additional training to deescalate conflicts and get more equipment to keep all parties safe. Instead of focusing on how we can help the police build trust in the communities, this bill focuses on how we can take from the police.

Clearly, the bill is designed to satisfy those that seek to defund and dismantle the police. None of this bill serves to build trust between law enforcement and their communities. Like every occupation, law enforcement has bad apples that must be held accountable.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding and for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor.

I commend Congresswoman Karen Bass for her great leadership in this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, nearly 1 year ago, George Floyd gasped his last words,

``I can't breathe,'' and ignited a nationwide reckoning on the racial injustice and police brutality in America.

Americans from every corner of the country took to the streets to peacefully protest violence against Black Americans: waving Black Lives Matter flags, chanting the names of the murdered, repeating George Floyd's dying words, ``I can't breathe.'' They turned their agony into action.

But, tragically, despite these mass protests, the injustice, the killing, continues. Those protests were global. They were all over the world.

Here, as Members of Congress, and as Americans, we cannot accept this epidemic of injustice. We cannot stay silent when our most vulnerable and historically marginalized communities--people of color, those living in poverty, Americans with disabilities--are being targeted and sometimes killed.

That is why today the House will again pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act and send it to the Senate and the President's desk, so that it can finally become the law of the land.

{time} 1915

I salute Congresswoman Karen Bass, who has been relentless, persistent, and absolutely courageous in her leadership on this legislation. I thank the Congressional Black Caucus and its chairperson, Joyce Beatty; and Judiciary chair, Jerry Nadler.

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act fundamentally transforms the culture of policing with strong, unprecedented reform. This legislation will not erase centuries of systemic racism and excessive policing in America. It will not bring back George Floyd, Breonna Taylor--say her name, Breonna Taylor--Ahmaud Arbery, or the countless other men and women who died or were senselessly injured. But it will take a tremendous step forward to stop the violence, stem the suffering, and start to build a healthier and better relationship between law enforcement and communities that they protect.

All of us here salute and are profoundly grateful for our law enforcement heroes. I grew up in a public service family. My father, my whole life at home, was the mayor of Baltimore. My brother was mayor later, Thomas D'Alesandro, in Baltimore. They had a motto about the police: Be true to the men in blue.

Of course, this was a long time ago. Be true to the men in blue. I was raised with that respect.

But then, prayerfully, these people, our men and women--now men and women--in uniform, whether they are police or fire, but addressing police here, our first responders left home when they left to go to work, not knowing, and their families not knowing, if they would return home because they were risking their lives to save lives and to protect all of us. So it was with great prayerful gratitude to most of the men and women in blue that we, sadly, have to say that our appreciation for them cannot lapse into apathy or acceptance of actions that are fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of policing.

Of course, there is not anyone on our side of the aisle who has advocated any policy in this body to defund the police, contrary to misrepresentations that are coming forth. All of us here, again, salute and are profoundly grateful for our law enforcement heroes.

As the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives writes:

The passage of this act is paramount in achieving the fundamental principle of a police force that ``protects and serves'' every citizen of their community with fairness, accountability, and transparency in their actions.

The Democratic Congress, together with the Biden-Harris administration, is committed to not only ensuring that this legislation becomes law, but to take further action to end violence and advance justice in America. Let us ensure that the passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is the first of many steps in this direction.

The family of George Floyd, who came here when the bill was being reviewed by Chairman Nadler's committee, asked me: Madam Speaker, will you name this bill for our brother?

His brother asked that question. The gentleman remembers that day. We couldn't be in the committee room because of COVID.

I said: Only if you think it is worthy of your brother.

I think of George Floyd at least once a day and sometimes more.

Do you know why?

Not just because of the sadness of it all, but I think of him because they tell us that, in order to be safe from COVID, we must wash our hands for 20 seconds. So as I'm washing my hands for 20 seconds, after about 8 or 9 seconds, I am thinking that this is taking forever; I can't do this for 20 seconds; it takes too long. Then I think of George Floyd--8 minutes and 46 seconds. It is a long time. It is a long time, as Congresswoman Dean said, calling out for his mother and extending love to his family.

Let us ensure that George's brother, Philonise, when he said that George's name means something; and that as his daughter, Gianna, said,

``Daddy changed the world,'' with this legislation, let us take an important step in changing the world for George's family, for all communities of color, for all Americans, and for the whole world.

Madam Speaker, I urge a strong bipartisan vote in the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, and I thank Karen Bass, again, for her leadership.

Madam Speaker, nearly one year ago, George Floyd gasped his last words--``I can't breathe''--and ignited a nationwide reckoning on the racial injustice and police brutality in America.

They turned their agony into action, but tragically, despite these mass protests, the injustice--the killing--continues.

Last year, 1,127 people were killed by police, far more than in the year before. In the months following George Floyd's murder, 645 people were killed--and hundreds more were attacked and assaulted, including Jacob Blake: shot seven times in the back in front of his three children.

As George Floyd's brother Philonise recently said, ``As a Black man in the United States, I want to be able to go outside and protest, because at this time, I don't know who is going to survive or not.''

As Members of Congress and as Americans, we cannot accept this epidemic of injustice. We cannot stay silent, when our most vulnerable and historically marginalized communities--people of color, those living in poverty, Americans with disabilities--are being targeted and killed.

That is why, today, the House will again pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act--and send it to the Senate and the President's desk, so that it can finally become law.

I salute Congresswoman Karen Bass, who has been relentless, persistent and absolutely courageous in her leadership on this legislation. Thank you to the CBC and Chair Joyce Beatty, and Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler.

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act fundamentally transforms the culture of policing with strong, unprecedented reforms, including: banning chokeholds; stopping no-knock warrants; ending the court-

created qualified immunity doctrine; combating racial profiling; and establishing strong new standards and protections to prevent and combat police misconduct.

This legislation will not erase centuries of systemic racism and excessive policing in America.

It will not bring back George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery or the countless other men and women who died or were senselessly injured.

But it will take a tremendous step forward to stop the violence, stem the suffering and start to build a healthier, better relationship between law enforcement and the communities that they protect.

All of us here salute and are profoundly grateful for our law enforcement heroes. But our appreciation cannot lapse into apathy or acceptance of actions that are fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of policing.

As the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives writes, ``The passage of this act is paramount in achieving the fundamental principle of a police force that `protects and serves' every citizen of their community, with fairness, accountability and transparency in their actions.''

The Democratic Congress, together with the Biden-Harris Administration, is committed to not only ensuring that this legislation becomes law--but to taking further action to end violence and advance justice in America.

Let us ensure that the passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is the first of many steps in this mission.

And let us ensure that, as George's brother said, ``George's name means something''; and that, as his daughter Gianna said, ``Daddy changed the world.''

With this legislation, let us take a small step to ``changing the world''--for George's family, for all communities of color, and for all Americans.

With that, I urge a strong, bipartisan vote for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I will just point out that the Speaker of the House said we should respect the police, but the Speaker of the House named an individual to conduct a review of the breach of the Capitol on January 6, and that individual has insulted the very police who protect us.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1280.

Do you know what is terrifying to the American people?

Watching Democrats try to pass a defund the police bill; the same Democrats who cheered on and supported riots that burned American cities, and the same Democrats who shared Minnesota Freedom Fund bail bond links supporting criminals and helping them get out of jail.

This bill is atrocious. Shame on all of you. This hurts our police officers.

April 29, 2010, my friend, Jonathan Edwards, was shot in the line of duty. If that happened today and this bill is passed, getting rid of qualified immunity allows the criminal who shot him to be able to sue him simply because they are upset that they were arrested.

This same bill will also allow that criminal who shot him to be able to put his name on a national hit list that will be made public, whether police officers are found to have done wrong or not.

This is shameful.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Omar). Members are reminded to direct remarks to the Chair and not each other.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is a critical step towards ensuring a country where Black people are treated as equal citizens, not just in theory, but in real life. This bill weaves into our laws the truism that Black Lives Matter. This bill will help build trust between law enforcement and the communities that they are sworn to protect and serve.

``Equal Justice Under the Law'' may be etched atop the entrance to this Nation's highest court, but it is not a privilege enjoyed by each of us. We must act now to ensure that we protect the humanity of every person. Stand up for the principle of equal justice for all.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote ``yes'' for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, the death of George Floyd last year led to communities across the Nation to come together to speak out against injustices, call for additional accountability and transparency in policing, and advocate for solutions that could move us forward together as a nation.

But instead of working with Republicans to find a bipartisan solution, the Democrat majority has, once again, written a partisan bill to ram through the House with no committee markup, no open amendments, and no meaningful bipartisan collaboration. That is not what the American people sent us here to do.

This legislation will impede the ability of good police officers to do their jobs effectively and uphold the rule of law. Our dedicated police officers who serve our communities work tirelessly to ensure that lawlessness does not prevail in our streets and neighborhoods.

The effect of this bill on law enforcement is to levy unfunded mandates on local governments, force law enforcement to leave the profession, and, yes, defund the police.

Madam Speaker, as you said, defund the police is not a slogan, but a policy demand.

Madam Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones).

Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Karen Bass, for her leadership; as well as the Congressional Black Caucus for always speaking truth to power.

Madam Speaker, today we take a stride towards ending racism in policing. But this is just the beginning. We must recognize that systemic racism extends well beyond law enforcement. Systemic racism is the way governments have deliberately impoverished Black families, then condition necessary medical care on our ability to pay.

It is the way we fund our public schools, a property tax-based system that concentrates tens of billions more dollars in White communities than in Black and Brown communities.

In America, it is the way we run our elections, purging Black voters, especially in Southern States, from the rolls and closing the polls in Black neighborhoods. We can't stop until we have eradicated systemic racism in all of its forms.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the insidious and false pretext for this legislation endangers and ends lives. The bill rests on a false premise and promotes a false narrative that police are racists and use their power to advance racist ends. This narrative is a false and despicable slander.

Police officers do not leave their loved ones and risk their own lives every shift to oppress or discriminate. They do it to serve. They do it without fanfare and for little pay, and they have come to anticipate abuse in place of the respect that they deserve. They do it to save lives.

But the reckless ``defund the police'' rhetoric behind this legislation is forcing police to retreat and to leave the vulnerable at the mercy of those who prey upon them.

Madam Speaker, you should run from that rhetoric, as you are. Madam Speaker, you called the police ``rotten to the root'' and called for it to be ``dismantled.''

That rhetoric is killing people. Please stop the political games. Stop slandering law enforcement, and stop endangering our communities. Back the blue.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, no matter how many times Republicans say that this bill defunds the police, it doesn't change the fact that it does not defund the police.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).

Ms. BUSH. Madam Speaker, first of all, we shouldn't be talking about good police and bad police. There should just be police who are doing their job to serve and protect the people. So let's make that clear.

There is no such thing as good police. There is no good nursing. When you go get food, you don't go look for: This place has a good chef; this one has the bad chef; I am going to go where the bad chef is.

We don't need this good police/bad police. We need police if we are going to have police. But I will move on.

Madam Speaker, St. Louis and I rise on behalf of the more than 788 people who have been killed by law enforcement over the last year. We rise 30 years to the day after the ruthless beating of Rodney King. We rise in honor of Breonna Taylor, who was brutally gunned down by police in her home last March. We rise for George Floyd and all those who have been killed by police since his torture and murder.

Those names: William Burgess, Mark Brewer, Dion Johnson, Tony McDade, Rayshard Brooks, Modesto Reyes, Ruben Smith, David McAtee, Kamal Flowers, Robert Harris, Joseph Denton, Vincent Truitt, Sincere Pierce, Jeremy Southern, Angelo Crooms, and Amir Johnson.

Madam Speaker, St. Louis and I rise on behalf of the more than 788 people who have been killed by law enforcement over the last year. We rise 30 years to the day after the ruthless beating of Rodney King. We rise in honor of Breonna Taylor who was brutally gunned down by police in her home last March.

We rise for George Floyd and all those who've been killed by police since his torture and murder:

1. William Burgess III

2. Mark Brewer

3. Dion Johnson

4. Tony McDade

5. Rayshard Brooks

6. Modesto Reyes

7. Ruben Smith III

8. Jarvis Sullivan

9. David McAtee

10. Kamal Flowers

11. Michael Thomas

12. Robert Harris

13. Rasheed Moorman

14. Ky Johnson

15. Kevan Ruffin

16. Joseph Denton

17. The more than 100 people whose names have been withheld by police

18. Erroll Johnson

19. Malik Canty

20. Richard Price

21. Hakim Littleton

22. Vincent Truitt

23. Aaron Hudson

24. Darius Washington

25. Vincent Harris

26. Jeremy Southern

27. David Brooks Jr.

28. Darrien Walker

29. Ashton Broussard

30. Amir Johnson

31. Julian Lewis

32. Rafael Minniefield

33. Kendrell Watkins

34. Anthony McClain

35. Adrian Roberts

36. Trayford Pellerin

37. Damian Daniels

38. Michael Harris

39. Name withheld by police

40. Robert Jackson

41. Dijon Kizzee

42. Deon Kay

43. Steven D. Smith

44. Major Carvel Baldwin

45. Steve Gilbert

46. Jonathan Darsaw

47. Robert Coleman

48. Caine Van Pelt

49. Darrell Zemault Sr.

50. Aloysius Keaton

51. Charles Eric Moses Jr.

52. Dearian Bell

53. Kurt Reinhold

54. Salaythis Melvin

55. Willie Shropshire Jr.

56. DeMarco Riley

57. Jonathan Price

58. Tyran Dent

59. Momodou Lamin Sisay

60. Stanley Cochran

61. Anthony Jones

62. Kevin Carr

63. Brandon Gardner

64. Donald Ward

65. Terron Jammal Boone

66. Skyleur Young

67. Dana Mitchell Young Jr.

68. Fred Williams III

69. Akbar Muhammad Eaddy

70. Dominique Mulkey

71. Marcellis Stinnette

72. Rodney Arnez Barnes

73. Gregory Jackson

74. Mark Matthew Bender

75. Ennice ``Lil Rocc'' Ross Jr.

76. Jakerion Shmond Jackson

77. Walter Wallace Jr.

78. Maurice Parker

79. Kevin Peterson Jr.

80. Name withheld by police

81. Justin Reed

82. Reginald Alexander Jr.

83. Tutuila Pine Koonwaiyou

84. Fredrick Cox Jr.

85. Rodney Eubanks

86. Brandon Milburn

87. Sincere Pierce

88. Angelo ``AJ'' Crooms

89. Tracey Leon McKinney

90. Name withheld by police

91. Shane K. Jones

92. Shawn Lequin Braddy

93. Javon Brice

94. Kenneth Jones

95. Rodney Applewhite

96. Rondell Goppy

97. Ellis Frye Jr.

98. Terrell Mitchell

99. Mickee McArthur

100. James David Hawley

101. Julius Paye Kehyei

102. Kevin Fox

103. Dominique Harris

104. Andre K. Sterling

105. Casey Christopher Goodson Jr.

106. Kwamaine O'Neal

107. Donald Edwin Saunders

108. Joshua Feast

109. Bennie Edwards

110. Charles E. Jones

111. Jeremy Maurice Daniels

112. Larry Taylor

113. Andre Maurice Hill

114. Sheikh Mustafa Davis

115. Shamar Ogman

116. Marquavious Rashod Parks

117. Larry Hamm

118. Jaquan Haynes

119. Jason Cooper

120. Dolal ldd

121. Carl Dorsey III

122. Tre-Kedrian Tyquan White

123. La Garion Smith

124. Vincent Belmonte

125. Robert ``Lil Rob'' Howard

126. Matthew Oxendine

127. Jason Nightengale

128. Patrick Warren Sr.

129. Heba Momtaz Alazhari

130. Lymond Maurice Moses

131. Kershawn Geiger

132. Zonterious Johnson

133. Christopher Harris

134. Eusi Malik Kater Jr.

135. Tyree Kajawn Rogers

136. Roger D. Hipskind

137. Karl Walker

138. Marvon Payton Jr.

139. Chazz Hailey

140. Patches Vojon Holmes Jr.

141. Treyh Webster

142. Dontae Green

143. Andrew Hogan

144. Dustin Demaurean Powell

145. Gregory Taylor

146. Joe Louis Castillanos

147. Robert Avitia

148. John Alvarado

149. Name withheld by police

150. Rommel Mendoza

151. Jorge Gomez

152. Sean Monterrosa

153. Eric Anthony Galvan

154. Erik Salgado

155. Juan Carlos Alvarez

156. Anthony Angel Armenta

157. Andres Guardado

158. Michael Kristopher Torres

159. Kevin Pulido

160. Martin Humberto Sanchez Fregoso

161. Leonardo Hurtado Ibarra

162. Nick Costales

163. James ``Jay'' Porter Garcia

164. Axel Perez

165. Carlos Baires

166. Name withheld by police

167. Antonio Mancinone

168. Julio Jaramillo

169. Cristhian Eliud Ramos-Murillo

170. Julio Cesar Virula

171. Ray Adrian Lara

172. Gabriel Salinas

173. Ramon Timothy Lopez

174. Roberto Hernandez Jr.

175. Name withheld by police

176. Ryan Shane Hinojo

177. Americo C. Reyes Jr.

178. Jose Vallejos

179. Name withheld by police

180. Daniel Rivera

181. Ronnie Kong

182. Jose Manuel Castro

183. Santos Anthony Villegas

184. Everardo Gonzalez Santana

185. Marco Antonio Sigala Jr.

186. Samuel Mata

187. Cesar Sanchez Ruiz

188. Name withheld by police

189. Jesus Alvarez Pulido

190. Julio Cesar Moran-Ruiz

191. Jesse David Nava

192. Miguel Vega

193. Marco Antonio Benito

194. Christopher Escobedo

195. Ricardo Miguel Munoz

196. Name withheld by police

197. Victor Sanchez

198. Angel Benitez

199. Isaiah Pama

200. Name withheld by police

201. Jason Rodriguez

202. Diego Eguino-Alcala

203. Juan Adrian Garcia

204. Nick Burgos

205. Douglas Sanchez

206. Cesar Vargas

207. Matthew Montoya

208. Jose Marcos Ramirez

209. Miguel A. Nevarez Jr.

210. Yoel Arnaldo Mejia Santel

211. Edwin Morales

212. Alberto Rivas

213. Jose Alfredo Castro-Gutierrez

214. Emmett Cocreham

215. George Cocreham

216. Francisco Danny Flores

217. Daniel Angel Villalobos-Baldovinos

218. Marc Nevarez

219. Name withheld by police

220. Charles Robert Arviso

221. Justin Esqueda

222. Rodolfo ``Rudy'' Martinez-Cortez

223. Luis Robert Zaragoza Barbosa

224. Augustine Morales

225. Pedro Martinez

226. Anthony Arias

227. Stavian Rodriguez

228. Nicolas Segura

229. Michael Anthony Pena

230. Adam Lee Mendez

231. Dolores Hernandez

232. Christian Juarez

233. Evelia Rivera

234. Luis Manuel Vasquez Gomez

235. Reno E. Casanova

236. Andrew Mansilla

237. Leonel Salinas

238. Paul Peraza

239. Christopher Cuevas

240. Name withheld by police

241. Jesus Perez

242. Bryan Cruz-Soto

243. Rodolfo Caraballo Moreno

244. Frank Gonzales

245. David Tovar Jr.

246. Felix Santos

247. Omar Felix Cueva

248. Josue Drumond-Cruz

249. Edwin Adan Velasquez

250. Juan Carlos Pena-Noda

251. Erick Mejia

252. Henry Barnes Jr.

253. Brandon R. Laducer

254. Antonio Black Bear

255. Nicholas Morales-Bessannia

256. Cole F. Stump

257. Trifton Stacy Wacoche

258. Ernie Teddy Serrano

259. Caillen Paoakea Gentzler

260. Peter K. England

261. Christian Hall

262. Reymar Gagarin

263. John A. Vik

264. Gary P. Dorton

265. Justin Mink

266. Name withheld by police

267. Kenneth Bennett

268. Alexander Scott

269. Name withheld by police

270. James Pharr

271. Gerard John

272. Ray Lee Jim

273. Gregory Lee Turnure

274. Donald L. Hunter

275. Jeffrey McClure

276. Michael Seltzer

277. Richard L. Mason

278. Phillip Dibenedetto

279. Jerry M. Bethel

280. Tiffany T. Bingham

281. Brandeis Codde

282. Name withheld by police

283. David Guillen

284. Jason James Kruzic

285. Robert Wenman

286. Matthew L. Fox

287. Julie Colon

288. Louis Lane

289. Lance Bowman

290. Kevin Lee Catlett

291. Name withheld by police

292. Doug Diamond

293. Rodney Liveringhouse

294. Name withheld by police

295. Name withheld by police

296. Taylor Christian Warner aka Tylor Warner

297. Joey Hoffman

298. Eduardo Martinez

299. Kanavis Dujuan Glass

300. Daniel Matheson

301. Michael Joseph Culbertson

302. Marcos Reyes

303. Rodney Morrison

304. Arlan Kaleb Schultz

305. Glynn Farse Young

306. Antwane Burrise

307. Name withheld by police

308. Malcolm Comeaux

309. Grant King

310. David Angulo

311. Deborah White

312. Name withheld by police

313. Name withheld by police

314. Dane Norris

315. Samuel Solomon Cochran Jr.

316. Jacob Wilbur Wright

317. Jason Matthew Henke

318. Winston Joseph Latour Ill

319. Giovanni Cedano-Amaro

320. Juan Rene Hummel Jr.

321. Gary Hardy Jr.

322. Colin E. Davis

323. William Sears

324. Ronald Pope

325. Cryus D. Carpenter

326. Name withheld by police

327. Melissa Halda

328. Christopher Lawings

329. Andrew S. Gwynn

330. Name withheld by police

331. Name withheld by police

332. Anthony Budduke

333. Name withheld by police

334. Donald Anderson

335. Robert Land

336. Lyana Gilmore

337. Name withheld by police

338. Name withheld by police

339. Donald Timothy Miller

340. Name withheld by police

341. Fred John Henry Arcera

342. Name withheld by police

343. Trevor Edwards

344. Ronald Stuart Chipman

345. Name withheld by police

346. Hasani Best

347. Christopher Walker

348. Mark Dawson Jr.

349. Gearil Leonard Williams

350. Corey Lee Cutler

351. Name withheld by police

352. Charles Garland

353. Casper Brown

354. Kurt Phelps

355. Arthur Zalman Ferrel

356. Fernando Napoles

357. Shaon Jermy Ochea Walker

358. Verlon Billy Stiles

359. Refugio Reynaldo Olivo

360. Matthew Patton

361. Samuel Herrera Jr.

362. Robert Samuel Craig Lusk

363. Joshua Clayton Brant

364. Name withheld by police

365. Derek Cooper

366. Julia Anne Moss

367. Randy Fedorchuk

368. Jessie A. Hudnall

369. Name withheld by police

370. James Lucachevitz

371. Kirby Joseph Michael Hengel

372. Name withheld by police

373. Mickel Erich Lewis Sr.

374. John Aycoth

375. Austin Manzano

376. Christopher Ulmer

377. Andrew A. Williams

378. Chester McDonald

379. Justin Caldwell

380. Ariel Esau Lujan

381. Shawn Campbell

382. Name withheld by police

383. Name withheld by police

384. Jason Edward Galliart

385. Name withheld by police

386. Name withheld by police

387. Name withheld by police

388. Ethan Freeman

389. Paul Sulkowski

390. Joey Hoffman

391. Name withheld by police

392. Name withheld by police

393. Steven Belville

394. Keith Beecroft

395. Name withheld by police

396. Michael Nichols

397. Name withheld by police

398. Name withheld by police

399. John Lipski

400. Name withheld by police

401. Bruce Allan Shumaker

402. Michael K. Nelson

403. Clifton Gorman Spencer

404. Brandon Keith Davis

405. Matthew Daniel Johnston

406. Jason S. Cline

407. Thomas Celona

408. Caleb Slay

409. Name withheld by police

410. Jason Neo Bourne

411. Name withheld by police

412. John Wesley Seymour

413. Name withheld by police

414. Name withheld by police

415. Name withheld by police

416. Javier Magana

417. David Viveros

418. Steven Campos

419. Rodriguez Duandre Pam

420. Terry David Fox

421. Name withheld by police

422. Ronny Dunning

423. Daniel David Reyes

424. Vusumuzi Kunene

425. Daron Jones

426. Chris Mellon

427. Eric Lyn Clark

428. Henry Frankowski

429. Name withheld by police

430. Name withheld by police

431. Name withheld by police

432. Christina Markwell

433. Name withheld by police

434. Terrell Smith

435. Duane Scott Murray

436. Peter Russell

437. Jordan D. Patterson

438. Name withheld by police

439. Douglas Hatfield

440. Name withheld by police

441. Nicholas Cory Kausshen

442. Name withheld by police

443. Lorenzo Aguilar

444. Name withheld by police

445. Alonzo Leroy Landy

446. Cory Donell Truxillo

447. Name withheld by police

448. Maurice Jackson

449. Larry Eugene Boyd

450. Nancy King

451. Randy Ward

452. Name withheld by police

453. Estavon Dominic Elioff

454. Name withheld by police

455. Thomas Reeder III

456. Nathaniel Sironen

457. Brad Tyler Masters

458. Joseph R. Crawford

459. Whitney J. Crawley

460. Kurtis Kay Frevert

461. Earl Robert Caperton

462. Name withheld by police

463. Name withheld by police

464. Name withheld by police

465. Joseph Evans

466. Name withheld by police

467. Johnny Bolton

468. Tyquarn Graves

469. Nicholas Ellingson

470. Name withheld by police

471. Name withheld by police

472. Daniel Russell

473. Name withheld by police

474. Mark Clermont

475. Michael Brandon Joyner

476. Name withheld by police

477. Helen Jones

478. Name withheld by police

479. Name withheld by police

480. Alaina Burns

481. Shyheed Robert Boyd

482. Samuel Lorenzo

483. Jeffrey Marvin

484. Name withheld by police

485. Isaac Matheney

486. Name withheld by police

487. Micahel Romo

488. Name withheld by police

489. Jose Guzman

490. Alexander Gonzales

491. Benicio Vasquez

492. Jacob Ryan McDuff

493. Kwamena Ocran

494. Charles Edward Williams

495. Paul Bolden

496. Xzavier D. Hill

497. Mark Bivins

498. Allen Mirzayan

499. Joseph W. Howell

500. Name withheld by police

501. Antonio Carbajal

502. Gary Rodriguez Jr.

503. Name withheld by police

504. Reginald Johnson

505. Name withheld by police

506. Name withheld by police

507. Daniel Young

508. Daniel Canales Jr.

509. Robert Laudell Bull

510. Bradley Alexander Lewis

511. Name withheld by police

512. Name withheld by police

513. Harmony Wolfgram

514. Name withheld by police

515. Javier Magdaleno

516. Kenneth Michael Dallas

517. Name withheld by police

518. Ezekiel Meza

519. Franklin Gray

520. Kevin Hayes

521. Andrew Scott Kislek

522. Name withheld by police

523. Joshua Crites

524. Name withheld by police

525. Anthony Andrew Reunart

526. Name withheld by police

527. Name withheld by police

528. Name withheld by police

529. Kevin Costlow

530. Dennis Denham

531. Anthony Greco

532. Keenan Sailer

533. Brooke Leann Blair

534. Brian Gregory Scott

535. Demarko Montez Henderson

536. Cortez Lee Bogan

537. Name withheld by police

538. Jacob Aaron Thomas

539. Jonathan Turner

540. Name withheld by police

541. Name withheld by police

542. Name withheld by police

543. Adam Bruce Connors

544. Phillip N. Davenport

545. Bruce Diehl

546. Name withheld by police

547. Name withheld by police

548. Name withheld by police

549. Richard Councilman

550. Tracy Drowne

551. John Allen Dunaway III

552. Jason Jesse Gallegos

553. Channing Lamar Spivey

554. Joshua Blessed aka Sergei Jourev

555. Steven Edward Ferguson

556. Sarah Grossman

557. Robert Anthony ``Jordan'' Whitehead

558. John Benedict Coleman

559. Name withheld by police

560. Caleb Rule

561. Israel Berry

562. Thomas Jeffery Sutherlin

563. Ryan Emblem Moore

564. Robert James Lyon

565. Scott Hutton

566. Mary Lawrence

567. Gregory W. Hallback

568. Benjamin Ballard

569. Jarrid Hurst

570. Morgan James Davis

571. Marcus James Uribe

572. Mason James Lira

573. Gregorio Cruz Vanloo

574. William Slyter

575. Hannah R. Fizer

576. Nicholas Hirsch

577. Troy Willey

578. Keith Willliam Brunelle

579. Jack Harry

580. David Lee Jacobs

581. Kellen Fortune

582. Buddy Edward Weeks

583. Cody W. Cook

584. Sabastian S. Noel

585. Benjamin Paul Brooks

586. Aaron Wesley Keller

587. Bonnie Jo Figueroa-Ortiz

588. Michael Pelley

589. James Tober Sr.

590. John Parks

591. Wade Russell Meisberger

592. Brittany S. Teichroeb

593. Jason Noble Snow

594. Wade Protus Phillips

595. Constantin Filan

596. Erick Gilmore

597. Paul Eugene Armstrong

598. Adam Lucas Carroll

599. Kevin Michael Norton

600. Terena Nicole Thurman

601. Sean Ernest Ruis

602. Tim O'Shea

603. Tyler Blevens

604. Name withheld by police

605. Chase Rountree

606. Name withheld by police

607. Kyle Elrod

608. Scott M. Kontowicz

609. John Karl Sieger

610. Christopher Poor

611. Andrew Jacob Preece

612. Howard Owens

613. James Justin Munro Jr.

614. Russell Van Liddell

615. Adrean Stephenson

616. Christopher Kimmons Craven

617. David Lee Rigg

618. David James Pruitte

619. Nicholas Kocolis

620. Jeffrey Scott Haarsrma

621. Johnathan Randell

622. Aaron Michael Griffin

623. Matthew Hilbelink

624. Earl Barton Jr.

625. Chris Minor

626. Joshua Squires

627. Kenneth Reiss

628. Joshua Gay

629. Rick Lee Miller

630. Jeffrey Hubbard

631. Thomas Moles

632. Jimmy Ferrer

633. Keith Allen Fileger

634. Erik Jon Perez

635. Jack Lamar Harris

636. Jeffrey Wratten

637. Shiloh D. Smith

638. Nathan Harrington

639. Scott Huffman

640. Joey Middleton

641. Damien Evans

642. Nikolas Frazier

643. Albert Wheeler

644. Timothy Clevenger

645. Michael Forest Reinoehl

646. Joshua Beedie

647. Andrew Blowers

648. Seth Holliday

649. Jeffrey Meyer

650. Chad Busby

651. Robert Ray Doss Jr.

652. Glenn ``G'' Alvin Eldridge

653. Clay A. Reynolds

654. Name withheld by police

655. Matthew Lyvon Paul

656. Scott Heisler

657. Rickey Wayne Riney

658. Matthew C. Knowlden

659. Joshua Sarrett

660. Andrea Chuma

661. Jeffery Ryan Blunk

662. Christopher Michael Straub

663. Matthew Nocerino

664. Erik ``Ace'' Mahoney

665. Jarred Kemp

666. James Edward Baker

667. Eric Marc-Matthew Allport

668. Justin Lee Tofte

669. Crystal Renee Starling Mcclinton

670. John Hare

671. Shayne Allen Sutherland

672. William Sendelbach

673. Kalun Purucker

674. Anthony Michael Legato

675. Sylvia Kirchner

676. Julie Fandino

677. Rodney Ross

678. Jason Arpad Peters

679. Steven Vest

680. Christopher Allen Kanouff

681. William Earl Lane

682. Justin Dawley

683. Bradley Pugh

684. Darren W. Randolph

685. Paul Bailey

686. Gregory Putnik

687. Chistopher John Kitts

688. Bryan Selmer

689. James Collins

690. Brandon Evans

691. Richard ``RJ'' James Jones

692. Paul Sarver

693. Ryan Fallo

694. Isaac Lemoine Christensen

695. Bennie Biby

696. Frank Murphy

697. John Pacheaco Jr.

698. Quincy Ivan Bishop

699. John Mellone

700. Guy Bradly Able

701. Justin Hammack

702. Michael Moza

703. Jacob Rucker

704. Wendy Jones

705. Jesse James Kale Brown

706. Douglas E. Rash

707. Charles Craig Meeks

708. Cody William Amman

709. Jake Settle

710. David Donovan

711. Joshua D. Evans

712. Dustin James Acosta

713. James Horton

714. Michael Dansby

715. Matthew Thomas

716. Brittany Nicole Yoder

717. Brian Allen Thurman

718. Joshua Lee LaPlace

719. Duane W. Rich

720. Ethan Tyler Calton

721. Craig Steven Wright

722. Leonard Francis Kieren

723. Dylan Ray Scott

724. Kenneth Dale Miller

725. Eric Drake Feenstra

726. David John Donelli

727. Name withheld by police

728. Adam Robertson

729. Benjamin Marley Manley aka Christopher Reeves

730. Joshua Hoffpauir

731. Jacob E. McClure

732. William A. Riley-Jennings

733. Joseph Tanner Casten

734. Tara Rae Liubakka

735. Cole Blevins

736. Jordan Crawford

737. Trevor Seever

738. Jason Williams

739. Henry Martinez Jr.

740. James Reising

741. Amanda Faulkner

742. Michael Conlon

743. Ashli Babbitt

744. John R. Neitling

745. Brian Andren

746. Betty Francois

747. Brian Williams

748. Junius Thomas

749. Daryl Dye

750. Ty Walvatne-Donahey

751. Joshua Van Machado

752. Jeffrey D. Kite

753. Justin Pegues

754. Robert Stephen Calderon

755. Kevin Darion Wells

756. Christopher Austin Dockery

757. Ryan Daniel Stallings

758. Brian Richard Abbott

759. Steven Verdone

760. Caleb McCree

761. John Eric Ostbye

762. Edward Bittner

763. Mark Meza

764. Chase Coats

765. Keith Scales

766. Chad William Songer

767. Richard Fenton Thomas

768. Tracy Hope Walter-Hensley

769. Nicholas Pingel

770. Tilford ``TJ'' Barton

771. Ariella Sage Eloise Crawford

772. Clay Tatum

773. Shae Estelle Jones

774. Joseph Johnson

775. Trey Bartholomew

776. Clifford E. Wilbur Jr.

777. Eric J. Porter

778. Brian D. Ellis

779. Gregory Chandler Metz

780. Royce Robertston

781. Lewis Ruffin Jr.

782. Derrick Thompson

783. Name withheld by police

784. Name withheld by police

785. Name withheld by police

786. Name withheld by police

787. Name withheld by police

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, the chairman of the committee has said several times that Democrats are not for defunding the police, but I would just point out the individual presiding over this session said that defunding the police is not a slogan, it is a policy demand.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the Justice in Policing Act was crafted in response to George Floyd's murder. Almost no one believes that that was justifiable. Partisans have snatched this moment of unity to further divide our Nation.

How have they done that?

Look at this debate. Speaker after speaker has hurled insults falsely claiming that no Republican supports reform. Now, it is true that we don't support this reform, but the majority has refused to even consider amendments or alternatives to this partisan bill.

An essential component of any justice in policing bill would correct current injustices. I only have time to mention one: warrantless surveillance of American citizens is wrong.

Get a warrant.

Last year, conservatives and progressives united around this point, and the Speaker blocked debate or amendment to FISA reauthorization. Now the same tactics are being employed. Every single Member of Congress is here to represent American citizens, and denying us amendments denies all Americans a voice.

Don't politicize something that can heal and unite us. Vote ``no'' on this bill. Insist on regular order.

{time} 1930

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mrs. BEATTY. Madam Speaker, 8 minutes, 46 seconds on George Floyd's neck. ``I can't breathe.''

Say their names, Madam Speaker.

Breonna Taylor, Casey Goodson, Jr., Andre Hill, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and so many more.

While we can never bring them back and we cannot undo the pain their families, friends, and communities have felt, we can do everything in our power if we unite and pass this bill.

As the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join us.

Our power, our message, is to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

The right should read the bill. The right should quote from the bill. Show me those words in the bill to defund the police.

I will show you accountability. I will show you transparency. I will show you justice.

The American people are calling on Congress to act. Yes, Black Lives Matter.

Let's meet the moment and turn agony into action. Let's pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a former sheriff.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill.

This bill should be a balefire, a warning to America that there are those across the aisle who wish to attempt to federalize State and local law enforcement. I would like to focus specifically, though, on this move to eliminate qualified immunity. This is a betrayal of law enforcement. This alone is enough reason to vote against this bill.

There is a myth, a lie, perpetrated by those who want to do away with qualified immunity, that qualified immunity gives officers free rein on the job. This is not true. This is not sovereign immunity; it is qualified immunity.

The way that an officer qualifies for that immunity and for it to apply in an action that he has taken, he must follow the law, he must follow his agency's policies, and he has to act as he has been appropriately trained. If he violates any one of those three, he is on his own; qualified immunity does not apply.

Madam Speaker, law enforcement is a dangerous profession that deals in split-second decisions. Most people in this room have no idea what it is like to determine, in a high-stress, life-threatening----

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 7 minutes remaining.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bowman).

Mr. BOWMAN. Madam Speaker, I was 11 years old when the police beat the crap out of me. Eleven years old, sixth grade; what threat did I pose, other than that of a child who was horseplaying in the street?

My mother and I did not feel empowered to take any recourse, because in our community, the police, unfortunately, operate as an occupying force.

I thank God that I am alive to tell this story. Unfortunately, George Floyd is not alive. Philando Castile is not alive. Tamir Rice is not alive. Aiyana Jones slept in her apartment on her couch. She was 7 years old. Police came in with a no-knock warrant and murdered her.

This is about transparency and accountability, and we should pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in a bipartisan way.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill, and that is a shame, because this is an area that is ripe for bipartisan compromise.

But the House continues to spend its time forcing through another Democratic package that had zero Republican input. We considered this very same bill last Congress, but it only passed the House with three Republican votes in support.

Meanwhile, my colleagues, Representative Pete Stauber and Senator Tim Scott, have proposed the JUSTICE Act to positively reform police to serve all Americans equally.

However, their sincere efforts have not even been considered by those across the aisle. That bill would improve law enforcement transparency, require more detailed records on the use of force, provide funds for body cameras, ban choke holds, and improve training to intervene in situations and deescalate. These are all things we agree upon.

Yet, instead of equipping our law enforcement for success, we are considering this bill that would make it harder for our police officers to keep our communities safe.

Every community is different and dictating policy from Washington will only constrain our law enforcement heroes who put their lives on the line.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise.

My dear friends, you say you have a bill. Where was your bill when you had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and you could have passed it?

You say you have a bill. The same bill that you had to replace the Affordable Care Act that you never passed?

The same bill that you had to rebuild the infrastructure across the length and breadth of this country that you never passed?

Where is the invisible bill?

I rise to support this bill that will deal with elimination of deadly force racism that can take the lives of Black people with impunity.

I rise against your invisible bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded again to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to each other.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, Senator Scott had legislation, good legislation, but the Democrats wouldn't take it up; they filibustered.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, what happened to George Floyd is atrocious, it is criminal, and the policeman will be held accountable; he has got to be.

But that has nothing to do with eliminating immunity for countless policemen across the country. This bill does not properly address or prevent what happened in poor George Floyd's case.

Why would we have a bill that eliminates immunity for anybody charging the Capitol, breaking in illegally? They would be able to sue the police in the future, tie them up in court. Why would we do that? Because if we do this--follow the money--then the unions will be selling a lot of liability insurance; it will be the biggest fundraiser they have ever had.

Let's get together and come together on a bill that will not just raise money, not just hire more lawyers, but will solve the problem of the death, as criminal as it was, of George Floyd.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, this bill isn't about what we just heard. This bill is a moment of potential redemption for a country riven by racial division, riven by a history of racism going back to slavery, the Reconstruction era, post-Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the violent oppression of people because of the color of their skin.

We, in this body, have an opportunity to redeem our country and its history. Let us unite behind that cause and that opportunity at redemption.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021.

The peaceful protests for racial justice last summer compelled a long overdue reckoning for our country to take action to fulfill America's promise of equality no matter the color of your skin.

That is why I am proud to cosponsor this proposal to end police brutality and address the systemic racism that has marred American law enforcement for generations.

With this legislation, we finally say enough is enough: We've had enough of racial and religious profiling; Enough of no-knock warrants and chokeholds; and Enough of police using military-grade equipment on our American streets.

We are a country crying out for an end to the centuries-long scourge of racist brutality that has stolen so many black lives from our communities.

The Justice in Policing Act will help erode the culture of impunity within too many of our police forces by bringing much-needed accountability and transparency to our law enforcement institutions.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1280, a purely partisan bill, developed with zero Republican input, that would defund the police and hamstring the ability of our law enforcement agencies to keep our communities safe.

This bill would lower the legal threshold to criminally prosecute a police officer for deprivation of rights, which would, at best, lead to a torrent of frivolous cases against officers and, at worst, discourage them from doing their jobs.

Our officers are already forced to work in difficult environments. Countless officers have already simply quit or retired early, while morale has plummeted for those who stay. It will continue if this bill passes.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1280, a bill that defunds the police.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 4 minutes remaining.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, Eric Garner, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, all Black men and women who were killed by police.

It is in their memory that I rise today in support of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, because we cannot live up to our ideals of justice for all while BIPOC Americans are disproportionately killed by police.

We need to pass this bill to save lives, to reform qualified immunity, to ban no-knock warrants like the one that contributed to the death of Breonna Taylor, to end the use of choke holds that killed Eric Garner and George Floyd.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this long overdue bill, to join me in this work to make this country a safer, more just place for all Americans. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, death and destruction at this Capitol from recent Trump-instigated violence shows the result of insufficient policing. The deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and in my area, Mike Ramos and Javier Ambler, and too many more, from misconduct, show the result of insufficient justice. As the name of this bill,

``Justice in Policing,'' indicates this bill is not about removing the police; it is about removing the injustice. It seeks accountability.

It seeks equal justice under the law by our law enforcers, particularly for people of color, who have too often been victimized by systemic racism. Instead of working with us to make it better and secure our communities and more justice for all, many of today's Republican opponents are only spouting the poisonous slogans of Trumpism. Because Black and Brown lives do matter, let's approve this bill to achieve greater justice for all in an America that is safer for all.

{time} 1945

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, which represents the worst of Washington: defunding police in a surprise vote in the middle of the night.

This bill advances the far-left Democrat platform, and would defund the police through unfunded mandates that cost State and local departments millions of dollars.

If this weren't bad enough, the bill advances an antipolice agenda with Washington-knows-best regulations, and puts a target on the backs of everyday officers by creating a national database of complaints that have not been adjudicated.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the bill. I stand with law enforcement, and I am grateful for those who serve on the thin blue line.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Mr. TORRES of New York. Madam Speaker, as a person of color who has seen in my own life the dehumanizing effect of stop-and-frisk policing in New York City, I know firsthand that the Achilles' heel of American policing is the absence of accountability.

We, as a country, have a choice. We can either choose police accountability or choose qualified immunity, but we cannot choose both.

The purpose of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is not to second-guess officers who act in good faith. The objective is to hold liable officers who repeatedly abuse their power and who rarely, if ever, face consequences for their repeat abuses.

If you are a good officer, you have nothing to fear. But if you are a bad officer, you have accountability to fear, and fear accountability, you should.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, what we saw happen to George Floyd was not an isolated incident. It was a modern-day lynching caught on camera, and it must stop.

Black men, women, and children are done dying. We are done dying at the hands of police.

Law enforcement should protect and serve. But in communities of color, we don't have the luxury of making that assumption. Many Black people get the talk, instructions on how to act when encountering police to increase the likelihood of returning home alive. These are survival tactics that my husband and I don't want to have to pass on to my young Black son, but we must.

For Black and Brown people everywhere, I urge my colleagues to vote

``yes'' on the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Let's affirm our commitment to root out police brutality and ensure accountability in policing.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I rise today in loving memory of Aiyana Jones, who was only 7 years old when she was killed by Detroit police.

The fact that the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act could have been named after countless other people murdered by police shows that this is long overdue. It is important to note this bill is a start, not the end, of our movement to transform what it means to feel safe in our country.

We must demand true accountability, justice, and reparations for the generations of police brutality against our Black communities. We must invest in the social programs that we know will give our communities the opportunity to thrive.

This is the justice that Aiyana Jones and George Floyd and many other lives lost to police violence deserve.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mfume).

Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, there is an old African proverb that says: Until the lions tell their own story, the tales of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.

Who are the lions? They are the victims. They are Black and Brown and indigenous. They have suffered, endured, and survived 200 years of brutality, slavery, racism, Jim Crow, oppression, deprivation, degradation, denial, and disprivilege.

We have learned in this country one thing, that justice comes in small steps. And when we consider the enslavement of the Negro, the extermination of the Indian, the annexation of the Hispanic, our Nation that we love had an iniquitous conception.

So these small steps, no matter how painful they are, must be taken. This bill helps move us toward a more perfect Union. I urge passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, as a representative of more than a quarter of NYPD's 36,000 active officers, and thousands more retirees and first responders, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1280 and every piece of legislation that aims to cripple or degrade our law enforcement.

Instead of working with Republicans, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to push forth yet another partisan bill that will diminish public safety and prevent our law enforcement officers from serving and protecting our communities, all while trying to hold them personally liable. The brave men and women who put on the uniform every day deserve better.

We have offered real solutions to increase transparency, accountability, and performance so our Nation's law enforcement officers can better serve and protect all.

But make no mistake, this bill you are about to pass today defunds the police. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the unfunded mandates contained in this bill will drain the resources of State and local law enforcement to the tune of several hundred million dollars. This is negligence.

As a resident of New York City who has seen our police department's budget slashed by a billion dollars by politicians who think they know more than the officers doing the job on the street, I can tell you that there are serious ramifications.

Crime has skyrocketed. Last year, shootings increased by 97 percent, and murders increased by 44 percent. We have seen livelihoods and properties destroyed by rioters and looters in cities across America.

Government's number one responsibility to its citizenry is to keep them safe. Defunding law enforcement is an abdication of that responsibility.

Tonight, I call on every Member of this body to cosponsor my Right to Remain Safe Act, which holds local governments responsible should someone become a victim of a crime due to government's negligence.

Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit today, we will instruct the Judiciary Committee to consider my amendment to H.R. 1280 to include a simple, straightforward sense of Congress strongly rejecting efforts to defund the police.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues say they don't support defunding the police. Well, here is their chance to show it.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New York?

There was no objection.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to say thank you to the millions of Americans who peacefully put this bill on the agenda.

It was nowhere last year until we saw 8 minutes and 46 seconds of a man being murdered, a Black man, George Floyd. People--White, Black, all different colors--took to the streets, and they said, ``No more.'' I want to thank those activists and ordinary people who said we don't have to tolerate this.

The bill passed last year, and it is going to pass again because the American people are tired of this racism and the killing and killing and killing of Black people.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, you said: Defunding the police is not a slogan; it is a policy demand.

Over 20 cities in this great country enacted that. They did that to the tune of $1.7 billion taken from the brave men and women who protect us all. That is our concern.

We would have loved to have worked with the other side. We had a bill. Senator Scott worked tirelessly on it. Representative Stauber, former police officer Stauber, on our side worked night and day on it. But Democrats wouldn't work with us, wouldn't take any of our amendments.

This is a partisan, political bill, unfortunately. That is why I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which bans police choke holds, creates a national police misconduct registry, and eliminates qualified immunity, among other needed provisions.

I grieved when first watching George Floyd's murder by a cop, and I grieve still over the continued loss of so many Blacks killed by cops. There have been 149 Black men killed at the hands of police since George Floyd's murder. I have been fighting against this police brutality since my first days as a member of the California State Assembly.

But here we are, mourning the victims of police choke holds, Blacks being shot in the back, fathers being killed in front of their children and their families. We Blacks are under siege by rogue cops, who we pay to protect and serve us, and White supremacists and domestic terrorists.

We have to resist this. We have to say to bad cops in blue that we are going to fight you. Or proud boys in yellow gear, we are going to fight you. We are going to resist you.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a comprehensive bill to address systemic racism in law enforcement.

Today's legislation is named for George Floyd, whose senseless death at the hands of a police officer shocked the conscience of millions of Americans and sparked a long-overdue reckoning on race in America and a movement demanding racial justice. Congress has heard this call for justice, and in response, Congresswoman Karen Bass and the Congressional Black Caucus have written this critical legislation to hold police accountable, change the culture of law enforcement, and build trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act takes these challenges head on by banning chokeholds, mandating racial bias training, ending qualified immunity, restricting the sale of military-grade weapons to local police departments, and establishing a National Police Misconduct Registry. While the inequities in our criminal justice system are immense, this legislation is a bold step to address systemic racism in law enforcement, and the time has come to make these reforms the law of the land.

Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to affirm my support as an original cosponsor for H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021.

This is not a new issue. But one that we continue to revisit over. And over. And over.

Madam Speaker, how many times will my Republican colleagues affirm that Black Lives Matter as the blood of Black Lives cry out from American cities and streets?

Despite what my Republican colleagues are purporting, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act will not defund the police.

But what it will do is bring us one step closer to justice by: banning chokeholds; prohibiting no-knock warrants; ending the qualified immunity doctrine that is a barrier to holding police officers accountable for wrongful conduct; Combatting racial profiling; Mandating there be data collection of these incidences for tracking, including body cameras and dashboard cameras; and; establishing new standards for policing.

George Floyd's death should not be in vain. And as a mother of a black son. Grandmother to three black grandsons, I do not want to have to worry about their safety when they encounter the police who are sworn to protect and serve. Not be the judge, jury, and onsite executioner.

Black lives matter, Madam Speaker, and it is past time that the laws of our nation reflect it. That is why I am urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. It goes without saying that I strongly encourage its immediate consideration and passage in the Senate.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.

Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the previous question is ordered on the bill.

The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Malliotakis moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1280 to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Malliotakis is as follows:

Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the table of contents):

SEC. 503. SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the House--

(1) recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion demonstrated by the men and women of law enforcement who keep our communities and our nation safe; and

(2) condemns calls to ``defund'', ``disband'',

``dismantle'', or ``abolish'' the police.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.

The question is on the motion to recommit.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208, nays 219, not voting 4, as follows:

YEAS--208

Aderholt Allen Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bentz Bergman Bice (OK) Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brooks Buchanan Bucshon Budd Burchett Burgess Calvert Cammack Carl Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Cawthorn Chabot Cheney Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Comer Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Duncan Dunn Emmer Estes Fallon Feenstra Ferguson Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fortenberry Foxx Franklin, C. Scott Fulcher Gaetz Gallagher Garbarino Garcia (CA) Gibbs Gimenez Gohmert Gonzales, Tony Gonzalez (OH) Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Gosar Granger Graves (MO) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hagedorn Harris Harshbarger Hartzler Hern Herrell Herrera Beutler Hice (GA) Higgins (LA) Hill Hinson Hollingsworth Hudson Huizenga Issa Jackson Jacobs (NY) Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Katko Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kim (CA) Kinzinger Kustoff LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta LaTurner Lesko Long Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Mace Malliotakis Mann Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClain McClintock McHenry McKinley Meijer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Moolenaar Mooney Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Mullin Murphy (NC) Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunes Obernolte Owens Palazzo Palmer Pence Perry Pfluger Posey Reed Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Roy Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart Stivers Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner Upton Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Wagner Walberg Walorski Waltz Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Young Zeldin

NAYS--219

Adams Aguilar Allred Auchincloss Axne Barragan Bass Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bourdeaux Bowman Boyle, Brendan F. Brown Brownley Bush Bustos Butterfield Carbajal Cardenas Carson Cartwright Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Cooper Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crist Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis, Danny K. Dean DeFazio DeGette DeLauro DelBene Delgado Demings DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Fletcher Foster Frankel, Lois Fudge Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden Gomez Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Haaland Harder (CA) Hastings Hayes Higgins (NY) Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jacobs (CA) Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Kahele Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim (NJ) Kind Kirkpatrick Krishnamoorthi Kuster Lamb Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lawson (FL) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Leger Fernandez Levin (CA) Levin (MI) Lieu Lofgren Lowenthal Luria Lynch Malinowski Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Manning Matsui McBath McCollum McEachin McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Mfume Moore (WI) Morelle Moulton Mrvan Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Newman Norcross O'Halleran Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Perlmutter Peters Phillips Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Price (NC) Quigley Raskin Rice (NY) Ross Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Sires Slotkin Smith (WA) Soto Spanberger Speier Stanton Stevens Strickland Suozzi Swalwell Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Trone Underwood Vargas Veasey Vela Velazquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Welch Wexton Wild Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--4

Brady Buck Graves (LA) Jones

{time} 2043

Mr. CASTEN and Ms. TITUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

Messrs. SIMPSON, ROSE, and BUDD changed their vote from ``nay'' to

``yea.''

So the motion to recommit was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Stated for:

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 59.

MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

Amodei (Kelly (PA)) Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries) Buchanan (LaHood) Cardenas (Gomez) DeSaulnier (Matsui) Deutch (Rice (NY)) Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA)) Gaetz (McHenry) Grijalva (Garcia (IL)) Hastings (Wasserman Schultz) Huffman (McNerney) Kelly (IL) (Kuster) Kirkpatrick (Stanton) Krishnamoorthi (Brown) Langevin (Lynch) Larson (CT) (Courtney) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Lee (NV) (Kuster) Lieu (Beyer) Lowenthal (Beyer) Meng (Clark (MA)) Moore (WI) (Beyer) Moulton (McGovern) Napolitano (Correa) Palazzo (Fleischmann) Payne (Wasserman Schultz) Pingree (Kuster) Roybal-Allard (Escobar) Ruiz (Aguilar) Rush (Underwood) Speier (Scanlon) Vargas (Correa) Watson Coleman (Pallone) Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carson). The question is on passage of the bill.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, nays 212, not voting 0, as follows:

YEAS--220

Adams Aguilar Allred Auchincloss Axne Barragan Bass Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bourdeaux Bowman Boyle, Brendan F. Brown Brownley Bush Bustos Butterfield Carbajal Cardenas Carson Cartwright Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Cooper Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crist Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis, Danny K. Dean DeFazio DeGette DeLauro DelBene Delgado Demings DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Fletcher Foster Frankel, Lois Fudge Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gomez Gonzalez, Vicente Gooden (TX) Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Haaland Harder (CA) Hastings Hayes Higgins (NY) Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jacobs (CA) Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Jones Kahele Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim (NJ) Kirkpatrick Krishnamoorthi Kuster Lamb Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lawson (FL) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Leger Fernandez Levin (CA) Levin (MI) Lieu Lofgren Lowenthal Luria Lynch Malinowski Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Manning Matsui McBath McCollum McEachin McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Mfume Moore (WI) Morelle Moulton Mrvan Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Newman Norcross O'Halleran Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Peters Phillips Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Price (NC) Quigley Raskin Rice (NY) Ross Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Sires Slotkin Smith (WA) Soto Spanberger Speier Stanton Stevens Strickland

Suozzi Swalwell Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Trone Underwood Vargas Veasey Vela Velazquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Welch Wexton Wild Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Yarmuth

NAYS--212

Aderholt Allen Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bentz Bergman Bice (OK) Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brady Brooks Buchanan Buck Bucshon Budd Burchett Burgess Calvert Cammack Carl Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Cawthorn Chabot Cheney Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Comer Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Duncan Dunn Emmer Estes Fallon Feenstra Ferguson Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fortenberry Foxx Franklin, C. Scott Fulcher Gaetz Gallagher Garbarino Garcia (CA) Gibbs Gimenez Gohmert Golden Gonzales, Tony Gonzalez (OH) Good (VA) Gosar Granger Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hagedorn Harris Harshbarger Hartzler Hern Herrell Herrera Beutler Hice (GA) Higgins (LA) Hill Hinson Hollingsworth Hudson Huizenga Issa Jackson Jacobs (NY) Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Katko Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kim (CA) Kind Kinzinger Kustoff LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta LaTurner Lesko Long Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Mace Malliotakis Mann Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClain McClintock McHenry McKinley Meijer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Moolenaar Mooney Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Mullin Murphy (NC) Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunes Obernolte Owens Palazzo Palmer Pence Perry Pfluger Posey Reed Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Roy Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart Stivers Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner Upton Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Wagner Walberg Walorski Waltz Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Young Zeldin

{time} 2127

Mr. ARMSTRONG changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK and Mr. KILMER changed their vote from ``nay'' to

``yea.''

So the bill was passed.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Stated against:

Mr. GOODEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was shown voting aye on rollcall No. 60. I intended to vote no.

Members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

____________________

SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 40

The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.

House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

State of Georgia