[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                             
     OVERSIGHT HEARING ON POLICING PRACTICES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                             ACCOUNTABILITY

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               ----------                              

                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2020

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. 116-80

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
         
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
     
     
     OVERSIGHT HEARING ON POLICING PRACTICES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                             ACCOUNTABILITY
                             
                             




                                 

 
      OVERSIGHT HEARING ON POLICING PRACTICES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                             ACCOUNTABILITY

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-80

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
         
         
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         




               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
               
               
               
               
                         ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
47-629             WASHINGTON : 2022               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
               MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee                   Wisconsin
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    Georgia                          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          KEN BUCK, Colorado
KAREN BASS, California               MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana        MATT GAETZ, Florida
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
ERIC SWALWELL, California            TOM McCLINTOCK, California
TED LIEU, California                 DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          BEN CLINE, Virginia
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
J. LUIS CORREA, California           W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LUCY McBATH, Georgia
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

        PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------ 
                                 
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Wednesday, June 10, 2020

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     2
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Georgia............................     4
The Honorable Karen Bass, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
  Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of California..     5
The Honorable Mike Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of 
  Louisiana......................................................     7

                               WITNESSES

Philonise Floyd, Houston, TX
  Oral Testimony.................................................    10
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    12
Vanita Gupta, President and CEO, The Leadership Conference on 
  Civil & Human Rights
  Oral Testimony.................................................    14
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    16
Angela Underwood Jacobs, Lancaster, CA
  Oral Testimony.................................................    23
Chief Art Acevedo, President, Major Cities Chiefs Association
  Oral Testimony.................................................    25
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    29
Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal 
  Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
  Oral Testimony.................................................    35
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    38
Pastor Darrell Scott, Pastor, New Spirit Revival Center
  Oral Testimony.................................................    46
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    49
Paul Butler, the Albert Brick Professor in Law, Georgetown Law 
  School
  Oral Testimony.................................................    51
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    53
Ben Crump, President and Founder, Ben Crump Trial Lawyer for 
  Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................    59
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    61
Ron Davis, Chair, Legislative Committee, National Organization of 
  Black Law Enforcement Executives
  Oral Testimony.................................................    63
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    66
Daniel Bongino, Host, The Dan Bongino Show
  Oral Testimony.................................................    78
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    80
Phillip Goff, Co-Founder and President, Center for Policing 
  Equity
  Oral Testimony.................................................    82
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    85
Marc Morial, President and Chief Executive Officer, National 
  Urban League
  Oral Testimony.................................................    90

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Articles submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland for the 
  record
  An article entitled, ``White Supremacists and Other Extremists 
    Exploiting This Moment,'' Integrity First for America........   138
  An article entitled, ``Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in 
    George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists,'' 
    Just Security................................................   141
  An article entitled, ``Facebook removes nearly 200 accounts 
    tied to hate groups,'' ABC News..............................   146
A statement from Brian Marvel, President, Peace Officers Research 
  Association of California (PORAC), submitted by the Honorable 
  J. Luis Correa, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from 
  the State of California for the record.........................   156
A statement from Arthur C. Evans, Jr., Chief Executive Officer 
  and Executive Vice President, American Psychological 
  Association Services, Inc., submitted by the Honorable Joe 
  Neguse, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the 
  State of Colorado for the record...............................   170
A video submitted by the Honorable Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  Florida for the record.........................................   183
Articles submitted by the Honorable David Cicilline, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Rhode Island 
  for the record
  An article entitled, ``It's official: the Trump administration 
    will `pull back' from investigating police abuses,'' Vox.....   190
  An article entitled, ``The Trump administration gave up on 
    federal oversight of police agencies--just as it was starting 
    to work,'' The Washington Post...............................   196
  An article entitled, ``Trump and Sessions Released Cops From 
    Federal Oversight. Now We See the Results,'' Mother Jones....   212
Items submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York for the 
  record
  A press release entitled, ``Civil Rights Leaders' Statement on 
    Justice in Policing Act,'' June 8, 2020......................   218
  A statement from the National Fraternal Order of Police........   221
  A statement from the Constitutional Accountability Center......   222
  A letter from the Players Coalition............................   230
  A statement from Alejandra Y. Castillo, CEO, YWCA USA..........   241
  A letter from Dana Rao, Executive Vice President, General 
    Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Adobe, Inc..................   244
  A press release from Third Way, June 9, 2020...................   245
  A statement from Erika Moritsugu, Vice President for Economic 
    Justice, National Partnership for Women & Families...........   246
  A press release from the Blue Dog Coalition, June 9, 2020......   247
  An article entitled, ``Little Evidence of Antifa Links in US 
    Prosecutions of Those Charged in Protest Violence,'' Reuters.   249
  An article entitled, `` `It means open season:' Under Trump, 
    the Justice Department has largely stopped investigating 
    police departments for systemic abuses,'' Boston Globe.......   252
  A statement from Kristen Clarke, President and Executive 
    Director, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law......   253

                                APPENDIX

A statement submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  Texas for the record...........................................   270
An article entitled, ``Man charged in deputy ambush scrawled 
  extremist `Boogaloo' phrases in blood,'' NBC News, submitted by 
  the Honorable Jamie Raskin, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Maryland for the record............   276
An article entitled, ``Miami-Dade officer who threw woman who 
  called 911 to the ground charged with battery,'' NBC News, 
  submitted by the Honorable Debbie Mucarsel-Powel, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Florida for 
  the record.....................................................   278
A slideshow submitted by the Honorable Matt Gaetz, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Florida for 
  the record.....................................................   280
Items submitted by Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-
  Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. for the 
  record
  A report entitled, ``Locked Out of the Classroom: How Implicit 
    Bias Contributes to Disparities in School Discipline,'' LDF 
    Thurgood Marshall Institute..................................   290
  An article entitled, ``For cops who kill, special Supreme Court 
    protection,'' Reuters........................................   318
  A paper entitled, ``Civil Rights Principles for Safe, Healthy, 
    and Inclusive School Climates,'' The Leadership Conference 
    Education Fund...............................................   335
  An article entitled, ``As a judge, I have to follow the Supreme 
    Court. It should fix this mistake,'' The Washington Post.....   348
A statement submitted by the Honorable Ro Khanna, a Member of 
  Congress from the State of California, and the Honorable 
  William Lacy Clay, a Member of Congress from the State of 
  Missouri for the record........................................   350
A statement from Rory Gamble, President, UAW for the record......   351
A statement submitted by Bruce Stern, President, American 
  Association for Justice for the record.........................   354
A letter submitted by Jay R. Schweikert, Policy Analyst, Project 
  on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute for the record.............   357
A press release submitted by the Center for American Progress, 
  June 11, 2020 for the record...................................   364
A letter submitted by Neil L. Bradley, Executive Vice President & 
  Chief Policy Officer, Chamber of Commerce of the United States 
  of America for the record......................................   366
A statement submitted by Alphonso David, President, Human Rights 
  Campaign for the record........................................   367
A statement submitted by the National Council of the Churches of 
  Christ in the USA for the record...............................   375
A statement submitted by Ayesha Delany-Brumsey, Division 
  Director, Behavioral Health, Council of State Governments 
  Justice Center and Terence Lynn, Deputy Division Director, Law 
  Enforcement, Council of State Governments Justice Center for 
  the record.....................................................   377

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Questions to Ben Crump, President and Founder, Ben Crump Trial 
  Lawyer for Justice, submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  Tennessee for the record.......................................   382


                          OVERSIGHT HEARING ON

                       POLICING PRACTICES AND LAW

                       ENFORCEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, June 10, 2020

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 
CVC-200, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair of 
the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, 
Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, Jeffries, 
Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, 
Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel-
Powell, Escobar, Jordan, Sensenbrenner, Chabot, Gohmert, 
Collins, Buck, Roby, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana, McClintock, 
Lesko, Reschenthaler, Cline, Armstrong, Steube, and McCarthy.
    Staff Present: Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; Amy 
Rutkin, Chief of Staff; David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John 
Doty, Senior Advisor; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Moh 
Sharma, Member Services and Outreach Advisor; Priyanka Mara, 
Professional Staff Member; Jordan Dashow, Professional Staff 
Member; Anthony Valdez, Staff Assistant; John Williams, 
Parliamentarian; Keenan Keller, Senior Counsel, Constitution; 
Will Emmons, Professional Staff Member, Constitution; 
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director; Kathy Rother, 
Minority Deputy General Counsel and Parliamentarian; Jason 
Cervenak, Minority Chief Counsel for Crime; Ken David, Minority 
Counsel; Betsy Ferguson, Minority Senior Counsel; Ella Yates, 
Minority Director of Member Services and Coalitions; and Kiley 
Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
    Chair Nadler. The House Committee on the Judiciary will 
come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 
declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on ``Policing 
Practices and Law Enforcement Accountability.'' I thank all our 
Members and Witnesses for participating today, both in person 
and remotely. I appreciate all the work that went into making 
use of this room and the technology we are using possible.
    Before we begin, I would like to remind the Members that 
we've established an email address and distribution list 
dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, or other written 
materials that Members might want to offer as part of our 
hearing today. If you would like to submit materials, please 
send them to the email address that has been previously 
distributed to your offices, and we will circulate the 
materials to Members and staff as quickly as we can.
    In light of what's going on in the world today, I ask that 
everyone in the room wear a mask at all times except, if you 
wish, when you're speaking. Other than if you are a speaker 
when you're speaking, a Witness when you're speaking, a Member 
when he or she is speaking, please wear a mask at all times. 
This is for public health.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    We are all familiar with the terrifying words, ``I can't 
breathe.'' They were uttered in Minneapolis by George Floyd 
while a police officer pinned a knee to his neck for a chilling 
8 minutes and 46 seconds, taking from him the final breath of 
life.
    Six years ago, Eric Garner uttered those exact same fateful 
words while locked in a chokehold in New York City. He too died 
at the hands of law enforcement.
    Millions of Americans now call out ``I can't breathe'' as a 
rallying cry in streets all across our country, demanding a 
fundamental change in the culture of law enforcement and 
meaningful accountability for officers who commit misconduct. 
Today, we answer their call.
    Our hearts ache for the loss of George Floyd and Eric 
Garner. They ache for Breonna Taylor, Amadou Diallo, Tamir 
Rice, Laquan McDonald, Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, and for so 
many other victims of police violence in all parts of America. 
Their shocking deaths sparked momentary outrage but no 
fundamental change. For every incident of excessive force that 
makes headlines, the ugly truth is that there are countless 
others that we never hear about.
    Every day African Americans and other people of color live 
in fear of harassment and violence at the hands of some law 
enforcement officers. This is their reality. Our country's 
history of racism and racially motivated violence, rooted in 
the original sin of slavery, continues to haunt our Nation.
    To those who do not believe it, please look at the tragic 
statistics. African Americans are more than twice as likely to 
be shot and killed by police each year. Black men between the 
ages of 15-34 are approximately 10 times more likely to be 
killed by police than other Americans. This outrage is a 
reality we must change.
    Today we examine the State of policing in America, and we 
look for ways to prevent racist acts of violence by police 
officers, to hold accountable those who commit such acts, and 
to strengthen the trust between law enforcement and the 
communities they serve.
    On Monday, I joined Karen Bass, the Chair of the Crime 
Subcommittee, as well as the Congressional Black Caucus, in 
introducing the Justice in Policing Act, which would further 
that cause. The bill now has over 200 cosponsors in the House 
and 36 cosponsors in the Senate.
    I want to make clear at the outset that the bill is not an 
indictment of all police officers. We must always remember 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.
    We owe a debt that can never be paid to the too many 
officers killed in the line of duty every year. It is clear 
that there are many officers, including some local police 
chiefs, who marched arm in arm with their communities who want 
to separate themselves from the dangerous behavior of others in 
the profession.
    There are too many officers who abuse their authority, and 
we cannot be blind to the racism and injustice that pervades 
far too many of our law enforcement agencies. The Nation is 
demanding that we enact meaningful change.
    This is a systemic problem that requires a comprehensive 
solution. That is why the Justice in Policing Act takes a 
holistic approach that includes a variety of front-end reforms 
to change the culture of law enforcement while also holding bad 
police officers accountable to separate them from those with a 
true ethic to protect and serve.
    Among other things, the bill would make it easier for the 
Federal Government to successfully prosecute police misconduct 
cases. It would ban chokeholds. It would end racial and 
religious profiling. It would encourage prosecutions 
independent from local police. It would eliminate the dubious 
court-made doctrine of qualified immunity for law enforcement.
    At the same time, the bill encourages departments to meet a 
gold standard in training, hiring, de-escalation strategies, 
bystander duty, and use of body cameras and other best 
practices. It also creates a new grant program for community-
based organizations to create local task forces on policing 
innovation that would reimagine public safety so that it is 
just as equitable for all Americans.
    The goal of this legislation is to achieve a guardian, not 
warrior, model of policing.
    The Justice in Policing Act is at once bold and 
transformative to meet the moment that calls out for sweeping 
reform, while also taking a responsible and balanced approach 
to the many complicated issues associated with policing. I look 
forward to bringing it before our Committee in short order.
    To the activists who have been sounding the alarm for years 
only to be ignored or greeted with half-measures, it is because 
of your persistence and your determination that we are here 
today.
    If there is one thing I have taken away from the tragic 
events of the last month, it is that the Nation demands and 
deserves meaningful change. We can and should debate the 
specifics, but at the end of the day it is the responsibility 
and the obligation of the House Judiciary Committee to do 
everything in our power to help deliver that change for the 
American people.
    I look forward to hearing from our Witnesses, who bring a 
wealth of knowledge and experience on the many issues we are 
examining today and will help guide us in that process. First, 
I want to address just one Witness, Philonise Floyd, the 
brother of George Floyd.
    We are all very sorry for your loss, and we appreciate your 
being here today to discuss your brother's life. We must 
remember that he is not just a cause, a name to be chanted in 
the streets. He was a man. He had a family. He was known as a 
gentle giant. He had a rich life that was taken away from him 
far too early, and we mourn his loss.
    This is a very difficult time for our Nation. We have lost 
more than 110,000 people to COVID-19, a toll that has fallen 
disproportionately on people of color. We have lost brave 
police officers and other frontline workers, who risked their 
lives to serve their communities. We have lost George Floyd, 
Breonna Taylor, and the many, many other victims of excessive 
force by law enforcement. We must Act today to honor their 
memory.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to thank all our Witnesses for being here today and 
extend our sympathy to Mr. Floyd and Ms. Underwood Jacobs. We 
are, as the Chair said, all so sorry for your loss and for what 
your families have had to live through and had to endure.
    Mr. Floyd, the murder of your brother in the custody of the 
Minneapolis police is a tragedy, never should have happened. 
It's as wrong as wrong can be. Your brother's killers will face 
justice.
    Ms. Underwood Jacobs, the murder of your brother by the 
rioters in Oakland is a tragedy. It never should have happened. 
It's as wrong as wrong can be. Your brother's killers will face 
justice.
    There are 330 million people in this great country, the 
greatest Nation ever, not perfect but the best Nation ever, and 
they understand, they understand, the American people 
understand it's time for a real discussion, real debate, real 
solutions about police treatment of African Americans.
    Americans also understand that peaceful protest, exercising 
their First Amendment liberties, honors George Floyd's memory 
and it helps that discussion, that debate, and those solutions 
actually happen.
    The people of this great country, you know what else they 
understand? You know what else they get? They understand that 
there is a big difference, a big difference between peaceful 
protest and rioting. There is a big difference between peaceful 
protest and looting. There is a big difference between peaceful 
protest and violence and attacking innocent people. There is 
certainly a big difference between peaceful protest and killing 
police officers.
    You know what else they get? You know what else the 
American people fully understand? They know, as the Chair said, 
the vast majority of law enforcement officers are responsible, 
hardworking, heroic first responders. They're the officers who 
protect the Capitol, who protect us every single day. They're 
the officers who rushed into the Twin Towers on 9/11. They're 
the officers in every one of our neighborhoods, in every one of 
our communities, every day, every night, and every shift they 
work, who put their lives on the line to keep our communities 
safe.
    Guess what Americans also get? Guess what else they 
understand? They know it is pure insanity to defund the police. 
The fact that my Democrat colleagues won't speak out against 
this crazy policy is just that: Frightening.
    Think about what we've heard in the last few weeks. We've 
heard the mayors of our two largest cities, Mayor Garcetti said 
he wants to defund the police. The mayor of New York says he 
wants to defund the police. The city council in Minneapolis, a 
veto-proof majority says they want to defund the police and 
abolish the department.
    This Congress started off with the Democrats, folks on the 
left saying, we should abolish ICE, then moved for us to 
abolish the entire Department of Homeland Security, and now 
they're talking about abolishing the police. This is wrong and 
the American people know it's wrong.
    We should honor the memory of George Floyd and work hard so 
that nothing like it ever happens again. We should honor the 
memory of Dave Patrick Underwood and work hard so that nothing 
like that ever happens again.
    A week and a half ago, our mission was clearly stated. 
Eleven days ago in Florida, the President of the United States 
clearly stated what our mission should be. President Trump said 
this: ``I stand before you as a friend, an ally to every 
American seeking justice and peace, and I stand before you in 
firm opposition to anyone exploiting tragedy to loot, rob, 
attack, and menace. Healing, not hatred, justice, not chaos are 
the mission at hand.''
    Well said, Mr. President. Healing, not hatred. Justice, not 
chaos. That is our mission. The President is right, and I 
appreciate his leadership.
    This is the House Judiciary Committee, with its storied 
history of defending the Constitution and the rule of law. 
Let's adopt that mission. Healing, not hatred. Justice, not 
chaos. Let's work together to make America the great place, to 
continue to make America the greatest Nation ever.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Jordan.
    I now recognize the Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security, the gentlelady from 
California, Ms. Bass, for her opening statement.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for 
your years of leadership on this issue. I know you've been 
involved for many years supporting police reform, and I want to 
thank you for convening this hearing today.
    What we saw in Minnesota, the slow, tortuous murder of 
George Floyd by a uniformed officer, was an outrage and a 
tragedy. What we have seen since then, millions of Americans 
marching in the street to demand justice and call for reforms, 
it has been an inspiration. Minus a few days of violence, it 
has been peaceful and it has been in the American tradition.
    What we have here today is a hearing in the U.S. Congress 
to examine policing practices in America and paths to reform, 
and so we have an opportunity. What we have seen since then is 
an opportunity to rethink the nature of policing, an 
opportunity for meaningful accountability in policing, and it 
is an opportunity to show the Nation and the world that we are 
listening and that we will act.
    Too often this debate is framed in terms of citizens versus 
the police, us versus them. This is really about the kind of 
America we all want to see. We all want to be safe in our 
communities. We all want the police to come to our rescue when 
we're in trouble. We all want to support the brave men and 
women who put their lives on the line for us every day.
    When we interact with police, we all want to be treated 
with respect, not suspicion. Nobody should be subjected to 
harassment or excessive force just because of the color of 
their skin, and no one should suffer the indignities of racial 
profiling or be on the end of a deadly chokehold. We should all 
want for ourselves and for our children and for our neighbors 
the same.
    On Monday, I introduced, along with Chair Nadler and more 
than 200 Members of Congress, H.R. 7120, the Justice in 
Policing Act. This bold, transformative legislation would help 
reimagine the culture of policing while holding accountable 
those officers who fail to uphold the ethic of serving and 
protecting their communities. I know later when we do a markup, 
we will entertain an amendment to change the name of the 
legislation in honor of George Floyd.
    If this had been a law last year, George Floyd would be 
alive, because chokeholds would be banned. Breonna Taylor would 
be alive, because no-knock warrants for drugs would be banned. 
Tamir Rice would have graduated high school this May because 
the officer that killed him had been fired from a nearby 
department and he lied on his application. This legislation 
calls for a national registry, so that would not have happened 
and Tamir Rice would have graduated high school.
    I understand that change is difficult, but I am certain 
that police officers are professionals who risk their lives 
every day, and they're just as interested in building a strong 
relationship with the communities that they serve, based on 
mutual trust and respect, as those who rely on their protection 
are. They want to increase and upgrade the profession, and so 
having national standards. It should never be that you can do a 
chokehold in one city and not in another. There should be basic 
standards, there should be basic accreditation, there should be 
continuing education, just as there are in so many other 
professions.
    When I was at the service yesterday, and when I was there, 
I looked up at the picture of George Floyd and I saw the year 
that he was born. He was born in 1973. That was an important 
year in my life, because that was the year in Los Angeles that 
I joined an organization called the Coalition Against Police 
Abuse.
    That was 47 years ago. Our police chief at the time, we 
were suffering from a number of victims who had died because of 
chokeholds. Our police chief held a press conference where he 
told Los Angeles that the reason why Black people died of 
chokeholds was because our neck veins were different, they 
didn't open up as rapidly as normal people. That's where we 
were 47 years ago.
    The question remains for us, though--it was 29 years ago 
that we saw the Rodney King beating, and as an activist at the 
time I was sad at the tragedy. It was horrific to see him beat 
like that. Most of the activists said, finally we know we'll 
have justice, there's no way these police officers are going to 
get off because the whole world saw what happened.
    In the civil rights movement what led to the great change 
and the end of legal segregation, aside from the tens of 
thousands of people that protested, it was the fact that there 
were cameras there. The beatings, the treatment of Black people 
in the South had gone on for, frankly, hundreds of years, but 
it wasn't until those cameras exposed that that then things 
began to change.
    So, what has happened in the 29 years since Rodney King, 
with the advent of cell phone cameras? We have seen example 
after example after example. Twenty-nine years since Rodney 
King, 20 years since Amadou Diallo, 6 years since Eric Garner, 
just weeks since the death of George Floyd. His death cannot be 
in vain.
    I told his brother that his name will live on in history 
because the tragedy that he suffered has been the catalyst for 
what I believe will be profound change, and not just change 
that helps to professionalize police departments, not just 
change that prevents further abuse and deaths, but an 
opportunity for communities, through receiving grants, to take 
a look at their community and say, well, there's all these 
issues that we face, why should police officers have to address 
homelessness and mental illness?
    Police officers complain all the time they're not social 
workers. That's right. So, with these grants, maybe communities 
can take an opportunity to re-envision what public safety is 
and come up with models, better models to work with police, 
better models to reduce the problems that wind up needing a 
police officer.
    So, that's what we have an opportunity to do in this 
Congress with this piece of legislation. I hope that we work 
for passage of this legislation in the House, it gets through 
the Senate, the President signs it, and in the year 2020 we 
never, ever see again what we saw a few weeks ago.
    It wasn't just a tragedy for our country and our Nation, 
but it really was an embarrassment of our Nation in front of 
the entire world. While we hold up human rights in the world, 
we obviously have to hold them up in our country.
    With that, I yield.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Since Mr. Ratcliffe, the former Ranking Member of the Crime 
Subcommittee, has left the Committee to serve as Director of 
National Intelligence, I now recognize the Ranking Member of 
the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, for an 
opening statement.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to join all my colleagues today in thanking all our 
Witnesses sincerely for being here, and especially Mr. Floyd 
and Ms. Underwood Jacobs for making the trip in the midst of 
such tragedy and difficult circumstances to share your 
experiences with us. It's very valuable to us, and we're 
grateful.
    Of course, you have our condolences and our profound 
sadness for your losses. I and my family and the community of 
faith that I represent have been praying for you and will 
continue to do that.
    We're going to talk about policing practices and reforms 
today, and that's a really important topic. Since this is the 
first Full Committee hearing that we've had in Judiciary since 
the tragic death of Mr. Floyd, I think it's also important for 
us to acknowledge here in the beginning what's believed by so 
many to be a root cause of the persistent challenges we face 
together as a country, and that is the need for authentic 
reconciliation in our communities.
    Everyone here understands the plain and simple truth that 
racism in any form violates the most fundamental principles of 
our great Nation and the rules of our Creator. The central idea 
of America, let's not forget, is the idea that we boldly 
declare the self-evident truth that all men are created equal 
and that they're thus endowed by God with the same inalienable 
rights.
    Because each of us is made in the image of God, there are 
very serious implications that come from that. Among them is 
the idea that every single person has an estimable dignity and 
value, and our value is not related in any way to the color of 
our skin or what ZIP Code we live in or what we contribute to 
society or anything else. Our value is inherent because it 
comes to us by our Creator.
    Any fool who contends he has some sort of natural right of 
supremacy over his neighbor violates not only the foundational 
creed of America but the greatest commandments of the God who 
made him. If we can ever learn to see one another as God does, 
I think it will solve a lot of our problems.
    This unspeakable Act of cruelty that America witnessed in 
Minneapolis has opened an important new dialogue on reform. 
While policing has always been regarded as an inherently local 
function, we do agree that Congress has a key role to play in 
ensuring that abuses are not tolerated and can never happen 
again. Justice has to be swift and bad police officers have to 
be held accountable for their actions.
    At the same time, we want to be careful to recognize, as 
all my colleagues have this morning, that officers like the 
ones involved in the death of George Floyd are not 
representative of the vast majority of America's law 
enforcement officers. Most are faithful, self-sacrificing 
public servants who put their lives on the line every single 
day to protect and serve our communities.
    We need to honor that, and we need to recognize and empower 
those law enforcement officers, which is precisely the opposite 
of the radical, dangerous proposals we're seeing right now to 
defund them.
    A government of, by, and for the people must be a Nation of 
law and order, and public safety, of course, is the key to 
maintaining our Republic. Without that, things like the 
rioting, looting, and violence that has led to the destruction 
of cities and minority-owned businesses, ironically, would 
prevail over the valuable peaceful protests that are intended 
to bring about meaningful change.
    There's a consensus among every Member of this Committee, 
Democrat and Republican, that there are solutions we can work 
towards that will restore faith in our institutions and build 
trust in our communities. From where we sit right now, we 
believe the most actionable reforms must focus around three 
core concepts, to simplify it: Transparency, training, and 
termination of those rare bad apples in law enforcement who 
violate the law and the legitimacy that upholds the character 
of our legal system.
    This common ground is key if we're going to accomplish the 
goal of keeping our communities safe, upholding the civil 
liberties of individuals, and protecting the legitimacy of law 
enforcement.
    None of these goals that I've outlined today are mutually 
exclusive, of course. We can and should clearly condemn the 
senseless violence we've seen and all causes of it, from a few 
bad apples wearing a badge to the bad apples and anarchists 
sparking riots and destruction in our streets.
    At the same time, we can work together on meaningful 
reforms and real results while upholding the respect and 
appreciation that is due to every American patriot who 
faithfully serves us on the Thin Blue Line.
    I have faith that we can work together as a Committee. This 
is a bipartisan concern, and we'll have bipartisan solutions, I 
hope. For the future of our country and for generations of 
Americans to come, we have to do that.
    I urge my colleagues in this moment, all of us, to hear and 
to listen to our Witnesses and work with each other as friends 
and fellow Americans to understand the need in our communities 
and foster our discussions on a foundation of civility and 
mutual respect. We've started that and I hope we can continue 
it.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Without objection, all other opening statements will be 
included in the record.
    We have an unusually large panel today but given the broad 
range of issues that we will be discussing, we have invited a 
broad range of Witnesses.
    As is customary, the minority was given the opportunity to 
invite Witnesses as well, and they have selected Mr. Bongino, 
Pastor Scott, and Ms. Underwood Jacobs.
    We welcome everyone and thank them for their participation.
    Now, if the Witnesses would please rise, I will begin by 
swearing you in.
    Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record show the Witnesses answered in the 
affirmative.
    Thank you, and please be seated.
    Please note that each of your written statements will be 
entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask 
that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes.
    To help you stay within that time, for those Witnesses 
testifying in person, there is a timing light on your table. 
When the light switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute 
to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it 
signals your 5 minutes have expired. For our remote 
participants, there is a timer on your screen to help you keep 
track of time.
    Given the large number of Witnesses, I will introduce each 
Witness and then invite him or her to give his or her testimony 
before introducing the next Witness.
    We will begin with Mr. Floyd. Philonise Floyd is the 
brother of George Floyd, who was killed by Minneapolis police 
officers on May 25th. Mr. Floyd has spoken eloquently about his 
brother's life, and we appreciate his being with us today, 
having flown to Washington to testify before us today directly 
from his brother's funeral in Houston yesterday.
    We are all so sorry for your loss.
    Mr. Floyd, you may begin.

                  STATEMENT OF PHILONISE FLOYD

    Mr. Floyd. Thank you. Chair Jerrold Nadler and the Members 
of the Committee, thank you for the invitation here today to 
talk about my big brother, George. The world knows him as 
George, but I called him Perry. Yesterday, we laid him to rest. 
It was the hardest thing I ever had to do.
    I'm the big brother now. So, it's my job to comfort my 
brothers and my sisters, Perry's kids, and everyone who loved 
him, and that's a lot of people. I have to be the strong one 
now, because George is gone.
    Me, being the big brother now and is why I'm here today, to 
do what Perry always would have done, to take care of the 
family and others. I couldn't take care of George that day he 
was killed, but maybe by speaking with you today I can make 
sure that his death will not be in vain, to make sure that he 
is more than another face on a tee shirt, more than another 
name on a list that won't stop growing.
    George always made sacrifices for our family, and he made 
sacrifices for complete strangers. He gave the little that he 
had to help others. He was our gentle giant.
    I was reminded of that when I watched the video of his 
murder. He called all the officers ``sir.'' He was mild-
mannered. He didn't fight back. He listened to all the 
officers. The man who took his life, who suffocated him for 8 
minutes and 46 seconds, he still called him ``sir'' as he 
begged for his life.
    I can't tell you the kind of pain you feel when you watch 
something like that, when you watch your big brother who you 
looked up to your whole entire life die, die begging for his 
mom.
    I'm tired. I'm tired of pain, pain you feel when you watch 
something like that, when you watch your big brother, who you 
looked up to for your whole life, die, die begging for his mom.
    I'm here to ask you to make it stop. Stop the pain. Stop us 
from being tired. George called for help, and he was ignored. 
Please listen to the call I'm making to you now, to the calls 
of our family and the calls ringing out in the streets across 
the world.
    People of all backgrounds, genders and races have come 
together to demand change. Honor them, honor George, and make 
the necessary changes that make law enforcement the solution 
and not the problem. Hold them accountable when they do 
something wrong. Teach them what it means to treat people with 
empathy and respect. Teach them what necessary force is. Teach 
them that deadly force should be used rarely and only when life 
is at risk.
    George wasn't hurting anyone that day. He didn't deserve to 
die over $20. I'm asking you, is that what a Black man is 
worth, $20? This is 2020.
    Enough is enough. The people marching in the streets are 
telling you enough is enough. Be the leaders that our country, 
the world, needs. Do the right thing.
    The people elected you to speak for them, to make positive 
change. George's name means something. You have the opportunity 
here today to make your names mean something, too.
    If his death ends up changing the world for the better, and 
I think it will, then he died as he lived. It is on you to make 
sure his death is not in vain.
    I didn't get the chance to say good-bye to Perry while he 
was here. I was robbed of that. I know he's looking down at us 
now.
    Perry, look up at what you did, big brother. You changed 
the world. Thank you for everything, for taking care of us 
while on Earth, for taking care of us now. I hope you found 
Mama and you can rest in peace with power.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Floyd follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
      
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Floyd.
    Vanita Gupta is the President and CEO of The Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Ms. Gupta previously 
served as Acting Assistant Attorney General at the Department 
of Justice and led the Department's Civil Rights Division. She 
received her J.D. from New York University School of Law and 
her B.A. from Yale University.
    Ms. Gupta, you may begin.

                   STATEMENT OF VANITA GUPTA

    Ms. Gupta. Thank you, Chair Nadler.
    Mr. Floyd, thank you for being here today and for those 
incredibly powerful words, and we are so sorry.
    Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and the Members of 
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 
Thank you, Chair Nadler, for calling this hearing on policing 
practices and the need for transformative policies that promote 
accountability, begin to reimagine public safety, and respect 
the dignity of all people.
    While the recent murder of George Floyd at the hands of 
four Minneapolis police officers put the issue of police 
brutality in the national spotlight, the outpouring of pain and 
anger is anything but a reaction to one isolated incident or 
the misconduct of a few bad apples. Instead, the outcry is a 
response to the long cycle of stolen lives and violence with 
impunity toward Black people in our Nation.
    We are now at a turning point. There is no returning to 
normal. We have to create a new way forward, one that does more 
than tinker at the edges, that promotes data and training. We 
need something that truly transforms policing and leads to more 
accountability for communities.
    It is imperative that we get this right and that Congress' 
response in this moment appropriately reflects and acknowledges 
the important work of Black Lives Matter, the Movement for 
Black Lives, and so many people that are bringing us to this 
tipping point.
    My tenure as head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights 
Division began two months after 18-year-old Michael Brown was 
killed by a police officer in Ferguson. The Justice Department 
was hardly perfect, but we understood our mandate: To promote 
accountability and constitutional policing to build community 
trust.
    During the Obama Administration, we opened 25 pattern or 
practice investigations to help realize greater structural and 
community-centered change, often at the request of police 
chiefs and mayors who needed Federal leadership.
    After making findings, we negotiated consent decrees, with 
extensive engagement and input from community advocates, who 
not only identified unjust and unlawful policing practices, but 
also helped develop sustainable mechanisms for accountability 
and systemic change.
    That is not the Justice Department that we have today. 
Under both Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, the 
Department has abdicated its responsibility and abandoned the 
use of tools like pattern or practice investigations and 
consent decrees. Instead, it is focused on dismantling police 
accountability efforts and halting any new investigations.
    The disruption of crucial work in the Civil Rights Division 
and throughout the Department of Justice to bring forth 
accountability and transparency in policing is deeply 
concerning. In the absence of Federal leadership, The 
Leadership Conference Education Fund launched the New Era of 
Public Safety Initiative, a comprehensive guide and toolkit 
outlining proposals to build trust between communities and 
police departments, restore confidence, and imagine a new 
paradigm of public safety.
    While much of these changes must happen at the State and 
local level, success is going to require the leadership, 
support, and commitment of the Federal Government, including 
Congress.
    Last week, The Leadership Conference and more than 400 
civil rights organizations sent a letter to Congress to move us 
forward on a path of true accountability.
    The recommendations included the following:

        (1) Create a national necessary standard on the use of force;
        (2) prohibit racial profiling, including robust data 
        collection;
        (3) ban the use of chokeholds and other restraint maneuvers;
        (4) end the militarization of policing;
        (5) prohibit the use of no-knock warrants, especially in drug 
        cases;
        (6)  strengthen Federal accountability systems and increase the 
        Justice Department's authority to prosecute officers that 
        engage in misconduct;
        (7) create a national police misconduct registry; and
        (8) end qualified immunity.

    The Leadership Conference was pleased to learn that the 
Justice in Policing Act introduced Monday by both Members of 
the House of Representatives and the Senate reflects much of 
this accountability framework. This is Congress' most 
comprehensive effort in decades to substantially address police 
misconduct by taking on issues, critical issues affecting Black 
and brown communities. As the bill advances toward passage, we 
will continue to work on it and to ensure that real change is 
achieved.
    Let me just say in closing that policing reform alone is 
not going to solve the crisis that we're in today. This moment 
of reckoning requires leaders, together with communities, to 
envision a new paradigm of public safety that respects the 
human rights of all people. That means not just changing 
policing practices and culture, but ultimately shrinking the 
footprint of the criminal legal system in Black and brown 
peoples' lives.
    It means shifting our approach to public safety from 
exclusively focusing on criminalization and policing towards 
investments in economic opportunity, education, healthcare, and 
other public benefits.
    Police chiefs and officers talk about the same thing. This 
approach will not only further equity but also constitute 
effective policy. When we stop using criminal justice policy as 
social policy, we will make communities safer and more 
prosperous.
    Now, is the time for Congress to pass lasting 
accountability measures, and we look forward to working with 
you until the day that these reforms are signed into law.
    George Floyd's death has impacted the world, and now it is 
on us to change it. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Gupta follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
    Without objection, at the request of the Ranking Member, I 
will now recognize the distinguished Minority Leader of the 
House for a brief introduction of his constituent, our next 
Witness, Angela Underwood Jacobs.
    Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Chair Nadler and Ranking Member 
Jordan, for convening this very important hearing.
    Mr. Floyd, thank you for your powerful words. I'll make one 
promise to you: Your brother will not have died in vain.
    I'm here to introduce Angela Underwood Jacobs, her husband, 
Michael, and her daughter, Trinity. More importantly, I'm here 
to listen to them and all of you.
    Now, I know Angela and I'm proud to call her a friend. She 
is a mother, a businesswoman, and the first Black woman to 
become a City Council Member in Lancaster, California.
    Angela is here to testify because her brother, Dave Patrick 
Underwood, he was tragically and senselessly murdered in the 
line of duty 2 weeks ago in Oakland.
    We mourn and pray for Angela and the entire Underwood and 
Floyd family.
    As a member of the Federal Protective Service, Pat was 
guarding a Federal courthouse, a symbol of equal justice and 
the rule of law, during the riots in Oakland on the night of 
his death. It appears his death was part of a targeted attack 
on Federal law enforcement.
    We pray that justice comes swiftly and completely for Pat, 
for George Floyd, and all victims of violence.
    Pat Underwood should be alive today, George Floyd should be 
alive today, David Dorn should be alive today, and so should 
countless others. Though we cannot bring them back, we can 
learn from their lives and deliver the justice and change they 
deserve.
    I hope that every Member of this Committee will listen 
closely and carefully to what Angela has to say. Our Nation 
must listen, and it must heal. Like Dr. King, we must reconcile 
our differences with a renewed sense of love and compassion. 
Like President Lincoln, we must remember that we are not 
enemies, but we are friends, friends that have a responsibility 
to rise above, to make sure we become the more perfect Union we 
strive to be. I hope at this moment in time, we rise to the 
occasion.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. McCarthy.
    Ms. Underwood Jacobs, you may begin.

              STATEMENT OF ANGELA UNDERWOOD JACOBS

    Ms. Underwood Jacobs. Thank you very much, and I truly 
appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
    As a Nation, as a people, we must come together to defeat 
fear, hate, prejudice, and violence. I want to ensure the 
memory of my brother, Patrick, is as a catalyst against 
injustice, intolerance, and violence of any kind. I want to 
honor my brother, Dave Patrick Underwood, and our family, and 
help our Nation think about how to navigate the righteous path 
to equality, freedom, and nonviolent systemic change.
    I want to extend my sympathies and condolences to George 
Floyd's family. Mr. Floyd's murder was not just cruel and 
reprehensible, but criminal. The officers involved should be 
brought to justice and held accountable for their actions or as 
well as their inaction.
    I wish that same justice for my brother, Patrick, who 
served with distinction and honor as a Federal officer for the 
Department of Homeland Security until he was murdered 
anonymously by blind violence on the steps of the Federal 
courthouse in Oakland, California. As he took his last breath 
on the cold, hard cement after being shot multiple times, he 
died.
    Fear, hatred, ignorance, and blind violence snatched the 
life of my brother, Patrick, from all of us. Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr., preached always avoid violence. If you succumb to 
the temptation of using violence in your struggle, unborn 
generations will be recipients of a long and desolate night of 
bitterness and your chief legacy to the future will be an 
endless reign of meaningless chaos.
    I have spoken to many people across this country--in fact, 
across the world--regarding what is going on in America. 
America is in pain, and she is crying. Can you hear her?
    I am here to seek justice through the chaos for my brother, 
Patrick, for George Floyd, for citizens of all colors, for 
communities across America, and for the police officers that 
protect those communities and their citizens every day.
    The actions of a few are dividing us as a Nation at a time 
when we should be coming together and uniting for the well-
being of all people. We will never solve generational systemic 
injustice with looting, burning, destruction of property, and 
killing in the name of justice. We must find lawful, peaceful 
solutions that uplift and benefit everyone.
    This, this is greater than a black, white, or blue issue. 
It is a humanity issue. When those in a position of authority 
choose to abuse their power, that is the very definition of 
oppression. When innocent people are harmed in the name of 
justice, no one prevails. We all lose.
    Everyone deserves the opportunity to feel heard, be seen, 
and feel safe. Police brutality of any kind must not be 
condoned. However, it is blatantly wrong to create an excuse 
out of discrimination and disparity to loot and burn our 
communities, to kill our officers of the law.
    It is a ridiculous solution to proclaim that defunding 
police departments is a solution to police brutality and 
discrimination, because it's not a solution. It gets us nowhere 
as a Nation and removes a safety net of protection that every 
citizen deserves from their community's elected officials.
    There is a path to achieving what we desire and deserve as 
a Nation and as a people: Equality, fairness, justice, peace, 
and freedom from oppression. It is the same path we started on 
during the civil rights movement.
    The solution to our Nation's ills is straightforward:

    Education. We need to actually invest in education again 
and make it our Nation's top priority. Through education comes 
knowledge, through knowledge comes understanding, and through 
understanding comes opportunity and freedom.
    Jobs. If there isn't any chance of making a decent living, 
there isn't any chance of having a decent, just society. We 
need to create more jobs that, in turn, will create more 
economic justice for all Americans.
    Housing. There is no way to live a decent life if you can't 
find or, in America's case, afford shelter.

    We need to listen and learn from each other. It's time for 
everyone to open their ears and listen to what each other has 
to say. America is the world's melting pot because we have so 
many people, cultures, beliefs, and points of view. Yet 
somehow, we've become siloed.
    As a single voice in this Chamber attempting to honor my 
brother and family, I hope I can make a difference today. I 
America to make a change, I want you, as our Representatives in 
Congress, to make a change so that no one ever has to wake up 
to the phone call that I received telling me that my brother 
was shot dead and murdered.
    How my brother died was wrong, and I am praying that we 
learn something about how he lived. Patrick was the type of man 
that when our mother fell to the ground as she was dying, he 
picked her lifeless body up as her spirit was leaving to place 
her upon her bed, because that's where she wanted to die.
    My question is, who will pick up Patrick and carry his 
legacy? I believe this is a responsibility for all of us. 
Please do not let my brother Patrick's name go in vain.
    Patrick was a good man who only wanted to help others and 
keep his community safe. He had an infectious laugh and a corny 
sense of humor. He would go out of his way to help family, 
friends, and strangers. He did not deserve to die in such a 
horrendously inhumane way. No one does.
    Now, my family is in a State of hollow disarray. We all 
feel the anxiety of wondering what tomorrow may bring or may 
not bring, which has struck fear in our hearts.
    Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly urge us all, all Americans, 
not to give in to hate and anger, but to resolve conflict with 
kindness and love, to lead with a sense of purpose and renewed 
energy, to create positive change as I have outlined here, 
through education, jobs, housing, and listening.
    Pat didn't tell anyone how to live, but he lived, and what 
an amazing life it was. I will never forget the way my brother 
smiled and the way that he loved his family with every piece of 
his heart.
    My wish is for us to live and live without fear and 
discrimination. Do not simply tolerate your neighbor, but 
strive to understand one another, and we will be a better, more 
just society for all.
    Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Our next Witness is Art Acevedo, who serves as the Chief of 
the Houston Police Department and also serves as President of 
the Major Cities Chiefs Association. Chief Acevedo received his 
B.S. in public Administration from the University of La Verne.
    Chief Acevedo, you may begin.

                    STATEMENT OF ART ACEVEDO

    Chief Acevedo. Thank you, Chair.
    Ms. Underwood, Mr. Floyd, I want to follow up with our deep 
condolences. Know that we are lifting you in our prayers.
    Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, and the Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate 
virtually in today's hearing. It's good to be with all of you, 
and especially my Congresswoman, Sheila Jackson Lee, and 
Congresswoman Garcia. I want to thank Congressman Sheila 
Jackson Lee and Congresswoman Bass for their leadership.
    As the Major Cities Chiefs Association reviews, the Justice 
in Policing Act, please know that we support the intent and 
look forward to working with the Committee.
    I appear before you today as the Chief of Police in 
Houston, Texas, and it is also my privilege to testify on 
behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association as their 
president.
    No matter the circumstance, every time a life is taken, a 
loved one is taken. George Floyd was a child of God and raised 
in Houston. His death was deeply disturbing and a shock to the 
conscience.
    Over the past few days, I've had the opportunity to meet 
with the Floyd family, and I will continue to lift them in 
prayer.
    Mr. Floyd, thank you to you and your family for allowing us 
to join you on your brother's journey home.
    There is no denying that changes in policing must be made. 
Out of crisis comes opportunity, and this is an opportunity for 
all of us to have some tough conversations, to listen, learn, 
and enact meaningful reform that is long overdue.
    As a profession, we must learn what is being shared with 
us. That includes being honest about our history. We must 
acknowledge that law enforcement's past contains institutional 
racism, injustices, and brutality. We must acknowledge that 
policing has had a disparate treatment and impact on 
disenfranchised communities, especially communities of color 
and poor communities.
    Several topics have risen to the forefront, and all reforms 
must be vetted to ensure that they are sustainable, effective, 
and have no unintended consequences.
    Law enforcement plays an important role. No two calls for 
service are the same, and in Houston we respond to an average 
of 1.2 million calls for service annually. Those calls 
disproportionately originate from communities of color.
    If we are going to talk about better policing, we also need 
to talk about the root causes behind the need for those calls 
for service. Some think defunding the police is the answer. I'm 
here to tell you, on behalf of our mayor and other mayors 
across the country and police chiefs across this country, and 
the diverse communities that we serve, this is simply not the 
answer.
    Defunding the police without addressing the socioeconomic 
reality faced by poor communities and the disenfranchised and 
how they are riddled with missteps would increase the need for 
police services. History has shown that underfunding the police 
can have disastrous consequences and hurt those most in need of 
our services.
    Appropriate police funding is critical to ensure agencies 
have resources to invest in technology like body-worn cameras, 
recruit qualified police officers who are service-minded, and 
training in implicit bias, training in cultural competency, 
training in de-escalation, and other critical training.
    The overwhelming majority of cops are good people. This 
cannot be lost. They are faithful public servants who put their 
uniform on every day willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. We 
can't let, again, the actions of bad cops let us lose sight of 
the fact that most cops are good. We must all judge each other 
through the prism and content of our individual hearts and 
actions and not through the prism of color and the uniform that 
we wear.
    While there is no national use of force standard and 
previous efforts at establishing one were met with 
disagreement, several components are ubiquitous throughout the 
U.S. prioritization of the sanctity of life, duty to intervene, 
and the use of de-escalation tactics and techniques is a must.
    Let me be clear. The actions of the four officers involved 
in the death of Mr. Floyd are inconsistent, unjustified, and 
repulsive. They are contrary to the protocols of the policing 
profession, and they sabotage the law enforcement community's 
tireless efforts to build trust.
    Moving our profession forward begins with a sustained 
commitment to accountability. From the start of academy 
training, recruits must understand that they have an absolute 
duty to put public safety, service, and security first.
    In the Houston Police Department, we instill in our men and 
women the certainty that policy violations regarding 
truthfulness will lead to termination or, as we put it, if you 
lie you die.
    It is important to note that every chief's administrative 
authorities are different across the Nation and that not 
everyone has the legal authority to take immediate action like 
Chief Arradondo did.
    I am encouraged. While there have been eras in America's 
history when police have found it difficult to speak up, we are 
speaking up today.
    Let it be clear, for many years officers have consistently 
been holding one another accountable, and complaints about 
police misconduct overwhelmingly originate from within 
agencies, not from Members of the community.
    Communities have an absolute responsibility as well. We ask 
citizens to report police misconduct without fail. This will 
afford us the opportunity to investigate, track, and report 
those complaints.
    We must also address the issue of officers who have been 
terminated with cause, only to get rehired by another 
department. Many of us refer to these individuals as gypsy 
cops. Many gypsy cops have exhibited troubling behavior, and 
that, in turn, undermines efforts to build trust with the 
public and efforts in terms of internal department 
accountability.
    Transparency breeds trust, and trust breeds respect. Mutual 
trust and respect between law enforcement and the public is 
crucial to good policing. The civil unrest occurring throughout 
our Nation and throughout this entire country is a sobering 
reminder of how quickly we will lose public trust and the 
consequences of that fact.
    Ensuring the department looks more like the communities we 
serve helps build trust and confidence. Unique perspectives and 
insights help a department lead and serve the communities of 
color.
    I'm happy to report that the Major Cities Chiefs 
Association has several departments now that are minority 
majority, like the city of Houston and the Houston Police 
Department and are reflective of the communities that we serve.
    On behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs, I want America to 
know that we hear you. We will continue to do everything in our 
power to facilitate your right to peacefully protest. The MCCA 
will not shy away from this challenge and will continue to be a 
leader and voice in the national discourse on racial relations, 
policing, and reform.
    To the Floyd family and to the activists across the Nation, 
our commitment is to be your voice, to join you, and to make 
sure that Mr. Floyd's death was not in vain.
    I yield the remainder of my time and look forward to any 
questions the Committee may have.
    [The statement of Chief Acevedo follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
       
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Chief.
    Our next Witness is Ms. Sherrilyn Ifill. Ms. Sherrilyn 
Ifill is the President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund. She received her J.D. from New 
York University School of Law and her B.A. from Vassar College.
    Ms. Ifill, you may begin.

                  STATEMENT OF SHERRILYN IFILL

    Ms. Ifill. Good morning. My name is Sherrilyn Ifill. I am 
the President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense 
Fund, the Nation's oldest civil rights legal organization, 
formed in 1940 by Thurgood Marshall.
    I want to thank Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan. I want 
to salute the leadership of Representative Bass and the 
Congressional Black Caucus on this issue. I want to extend, on 
behalf of the Legal Defense Fund, my deepest condolences to the 
Floyd family and thank them for their courage and their voice 
at this important moment.
    We welcome the Justice in Policing Act as a first step in 
addressing the decades-long call and demand for policing 
reform.
    The legislation includes reforms that LDF's Policing Reform 
Campaign has advocated for years to ensure greater 
accountability for police officers who engage in misconduct and 
brutality. Members of Congress incorporated a number of our 
proposals in the act, which is a step in the right direction 
toward ensuring police accountability nationwide.
    I want to first focus this Committee's attention on the 
significance of this moment and the importance of the Federal 
Government's role in addressing this crisis. You are in a civil 
rights moment.
    In 1964-1967, cities all over the North in this country 
were gripped by urban unrest. In Watts and Detroit, Harlem, 
Minneapolis, and scores of other cities, Black people took to 
the streets to protest police brutality. It was during that 
period of unrest that Dr. Martin Luther King said, ``Riots are 
the language of the unheard.''
    The 1968 Kerner Commission was created to study the source 
of that unrest, and much of the report's findings and 
recommendations focused on law enforcement's presence and 
conduct in Black communities.
    This period overlapped with the years that most people 
think of as the core civil rights movement, when Black people 
in the South petitioned, protested, marched, and demanded 
Federal legislation to address segregation, voter suppression, 
and economic injustice. The result were core civil right 
statutes: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
    Despite the unrest in northern cities, in over 100 cities 
during that decade, there was no legislation to address the 
issue of police brutality in African-American communities. As a 
result, very little has changed since that period as it relates 
to this issue.
    Therefore, too many officers know that they can commit the 
most heinous acts against African Americans without fear of 
accountability. Ranking Member Jordan said that the killers of 
George Floyd will face justice, but we also know that those who 
killed Philando Castile, Eric Garner, Terence Crutcher, Eleanor 
Bumpurs, Michael Stewart, Clifford Glover, Sean Bell, Amadou 
Diallo, and countless others never were held accountable for 
the crimes they committed.
    That snapshot of former officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on 
the neck of George Floyd, with his hands in his pockets, 
looking out, with no fear of being videotaped, should shame 
every Member of this body, every judge, every lawyer, everyone 
who has participated in the perpetuation a system that calls 
itself a justice system but routinely allows officers of the 
State to take innocent life with impunity. You have the chance 
now to change that.
    Once the key parts of the system of impunity have been 
qualified immunity, a defense that shields officials from the 
unforeseeable consequences of their Act but has been 
interpreted by courts so expansively that it now provides near 
immunity for police officers who engage in unconstitutional 
acts of violence.
    LDF has litigated a number of these cases. For example, in 
2018, we filed a petition in the United States Supreme Court 
appealing a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the 11th Circuit that affirmed summary judgment in favor of a 
law enforcement officer who tased our client, Khari Illidge, 19 
times to death. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition.
    This case was not a one-off. Every year, cert petitions are 
filed in the Court, seeking review of cases in which law 
enforcement officers have successfully eluded accountability 
for the most violent forms of brutality by raising the 
qualified immunity defense.
    The Justice in Policing Act seeks to address qualified 
immunity by amending the civil rights statute used most in 
police excessive-use-of-force cases, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and we 
welcome this amendment. We want it to apply to all civil suits 
that are pending or filed after enactment of the act. We will 
continue to work towards the elimination of qualified immunity.
    There is bipartisan support for ending qualified immunity, 
and so I'll close my remarks by quoting from a Federal Circuit 
Court Judge in a decision issued just this week in the Fourth 
Circuit Court of Appeals. It was written by a judge appointed 
first to the bench by George W. Bush.
    He said, in Jones v. City of Martinsburg, Judge Henry Floyd 
said, ``Wayne Jones was killed just 1 year before the Ferguson, 
Missouri, shooting of Michael Brown would once again draw 
national scrutiny to police shootings of Black people in the 
United States. Seven years later, we are asked to decide 
whether it was clearly established that 5 officers could not 
shoot a man 22 times as he lay motionless on the ground. Before 
the ink dried on this opinion, the FBI opened an investigation 
into the death of yet another Black man at the hands of police, 
this time George Floyd in Minneapolis. This has to stop. To 
award qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage in this 
case would signal absolute immunity for fear-based use of 
force, which we cannot accept.''
    This decision represents a minority of cases, and so we 
need Congress to act. You are required by history to meet this 
civil rights moment. It is a moment in which we have a chance 
to transform our approach to public safety, to recognize that 
most community conflicts do not require the intervention of an 
armed officer, and to speak our values through Federal and 
State budgets that prioritize our commitment to 
antidiscrimination, to public health, and to true public safety 
for all.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Ifill follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
       
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Our next Witness is Darrell Scott, who is the founder and 
senior pastor of the New Spirit Revival Center, a 
nondenominational church in Cleveland Heights, Ohio. Pastor 
Scott is also the author of the book ``Nothing to Lose: 
Unlikely Allies in the Struggle for a Better Black America.''
    Pastor Scott, you may begin.

               STATEMENT OF PASTOR DARRELL SCOTT

    Pastor Scott. Chair Nadler, Members of the Committee, 
Ranking Member Jordan, thank you for inviting me to participate 
in these very serious hearings today.
    I want to begin by stating that the prospect of defunding 
and/or dismantling police forces across the country is one of 
the most unwise, irresponsible proposals by American 
politicians in our Nation's history and makes absolutely no 
sense at all, at least to me. I believe it is nothing short of 
the politicizing of current social events in an effort to 
garner votes during this election season. I also believe that 
it's a reactionary measure that can and will result in short- 
and long-term damage to American society, particularly in our 
inner-city and urban communities.
    Now, I recognize the fact that the elimination of excessive 
force and physical retaliation by officers of the law against 
American citizens is paramount today. I recognize the fact that 
racial profiling and the harsh treatment of minorities is a 
very real reality that must be eliminated immediately.
    I, myself, can testify of times in my life when I felt 
racially profiled by police. I can testify of times in my life 
when I was pulled over for driving while black. I can testify 
of giving my grandson, who is now of driving age, ``the talk'' 
of how to properly behave if pulled over by police, because he 
had the question of a very real fear of the possibility of 
death at the hands of police.
    In fact, my very first interaction with police, when I was 
13 years old, resulted in me being roughed up. I could very 
easily have been George Floyd. George Floyd could have very 
easily been me, my brothers, my friends, or any number of any 
other Black men in America.
    However, I do not recommend throwing the baby out with the 
bath water by labeling all police officers as bad cops simply 
because of the bad actions of a rogue segment of those whose 
job is supposed to be to protect and to serve American 
citizens.
    In fact, in certain inner-city communities across America, 
increased funding for police and increased police presence is 
actually necessary to enforce the law and to guarantee the 
safety and the security of law-abiding members of those 
communities.
    As one who was formerly in that street life years ago--I 
might be a pastor, but I didn't come down from heaven. I came 
up out of hell with the rest of everybody else. I was formerly 
in that street life. I know very much about the criminal 
element. I can State definitively that the criminal element in 
and of society would enjoy nothing better than a reduction in 
police presence and police power. It would allow those with 
criminal intentions and criminal actions to flourish, virtually 
unchallenged, in the communities of America.
    The law-abiding members of society would be directly 
threatened by the absence of police or the inability of police 
to respond to criminal activities and, in many cases, would 
endeavor to take the law into their own hands to ensure their 
safety and well-being, as evidenced by the response of some who 
decided to defend themselves and their property from vandalism. 
An absence of police presence could potentially give rise to 
acts of domestic terrorism, mob rule, gang rule, neighborhood 
intimidation, oppression, and vigilantism.
    Defunding of police departments has already happened in a 
number of American cities and, rather than remedying problems, 
has actually made conditions much worse. The city of Cleveland, 
my hometown, is a prime example of the results of police 
defunding.
    In 2004, the city of Cleveland laid off 285 officers. The 
entire police budget was slashed by 31 percent. To cover basic 
services, the following units were either disbanded or cut 
forever: The district strike force units; the narcotics unit 
was completely cut. SWAT was downsized. The fugitive unit was 
disbanded. The auto-theft unit was disbanded. The intelligence 
unit was cut to bare bones. The mounted unit was cut 85 
percent. The aviation unit was down completely for 3 years and 
is now only utilized during special events. The harbor unit was 
disabled; the boat sits, rotting, in a dry dock. The scientific 
investigation unit was cut 80 percent. All the lab techs were 
let go. All the evidence collection is now done by priority. 
The DARE program, the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program, 
was cut. Community policing was cut 45 percent.
    Cleveland went through a decade-long downsizing which saw 
the department reduce from 1,900 officers to 1,500 officers, on 
average. Zone car coverage, which directly affects citizens, 
has been cut. Police presence in any given district on any 
given shift has been cut in half. One- and two-man units have 
been cut in half. Response time is dramatically longer, if the 
police show up at all.
    The murder rates have climbed. The property crime is at 
record levels. Aggravated robbery statistics are higher. Drug 
sales, drug use, drug abuse is higher. Drug- and alcohol-
related motor vehicle accidents are the highest they have ever 
been.
    Cleveland went from a relatively safe city per capita to an 
unbelievably unsafe city. Calls for service have increased even 
though the population has dropped significantly over the last 
20 years. Once-safe areas of the city are now unsafe. Once-nice 
neighborhoods in the city are now not nice. Homicides are up 55 
percent in Cleveland from this time last year, and Cleveland 
now has a higher murder rate per 100,000 residents than Chicago 
does.
    I believe the police departments are only as effective as 
politicians and their appointees allow them to be. 
Consequently, politicians and appointees are directly 
responsible for the State of their police departments.
    Law-abiding citizens--and I've spoken to a great deal of 
them--overwhelmingly think that defunding or disbanding police 
departments is a horrible idea.
    Community policing is a very viable option to address the 
needs of inner-city communities. Having police in the 
communities to actually get to know the residents is the best 
way to obtain the results that we all want. When I was growing 
up, the residents and the business owners knew the police 
officers that were assigned to our neighborhoods, and their 
presence was a deterrent to criminal activity.
    So, in short, defunding of police departments in America 
has already happened, and it has proven to be an epic failure. 
We cannot allow that paradigm to continue if we want the 
neighborhoods of America to be safe to live in, the streets of 
America to be safe for residents to walk on, and the 
communities of America conducive for businesses to thrive in.
    So, I recommend and I agree with the fact that police 
reform--or, better yet, police revision--should be enacted. It 
has to be one that is sensitive to the stress, tension, 
pressure, and paranoia that policing produces--the fact that, 
on any given day, any given call, any given stop can result in 
an officer's death can be very challenging mentally--while also 
being sensitive to the citizens of America, who are supposed to 
be protected by the police and not be enemies of the police, 
whether in the suburbs or in the inner cities, whether we are 
black, white, red, yellow, or brown.
    I really believe that most police officers, most cops began 
their careers--most bad cops began their careers as good cops, 
but they allowed the rigors of their job to affect their 
perspectives and their social interaction with those they are 
supposed to protect, and they began perceiving those that they 
are supposed to protect as those they, themselves, need to be 
protected from.
    I'm in agreement, I endorse police reform, but it has to be 
sensitive to both sides of that issue.
    Thank you for allowing me. God bless you.
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Before I call on the next Witness, I just remind Witnesses 
to turn off their mikes when you're not speaking. Turn them on 
when you're speaking, turn them off when you're not speaking, 
please.
    Our next Witness is Mr. Paul Butler, who's the Albert Brick 
Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, where he 
specializes in criminal law and race relations. Professor 
Butler is also the author of the book ``Let's Get Free: A Hip-
Hop Theory of Justice'' and ``Chokehold: Policing Black Men.'' 
Mr. Butler received his J.D. from Harvard Law School and his 
B.A. from Yale University.
    Mr. Butler, you may begin.

                    STATEMENT OF PAUL BUTLER

    Mr. Butler. Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, honorable 
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 
testify.
    Mr. Floyd and Ms. Underwood Jacobs, I'm so sorry for your 
loss. May the memory of your brothers, the memory of the other 
marchers be a blessing to the people all over the country, all 
over the world who are rising up in what Martin Luther King 
called the beautiful struggle for equal justice.
    There has never, not for 1 minute, in American history been 
peace between Black people and the police. Nothing since 
slavery has sparked the level of outrage among African 
Americans as when they feel under violent attack by the police.
    Black people have endured Jim Crow segregation, being shut 
out of Social Security and the GI Bill, massive resistance to 
school desegregation, nonstop efforts to prevent us from 
voting, and poison water. The rare times Black people have set 
aside traditional civil rights strategies and instead have 
risen in the streets, destroyed property, and resisted symbols 
of the State has been because of something that the police have 
done.
    In Watts, 1965; Newark, 1967; Miami, 1980; L.A., 1992; 
Ferguson, 2015; Baltimore, 2016; and Minneapolis, 2020; all 
those cities went up in flames because the police killed 
another Black man.
    Unlawful violence is never acceptable, either as a 
misguided approach of a few or as an abuse of the power and 
trust we place in law enforcement officers.
    The main problem is not bad-apple cops. Officers have 
difficult jobs, and many serve with honor and valor. Still, 
almost every objective investigation of a police department 
finds that police, as policy, treat African Americans with 
contempt. The police kill, wound, pepper spray, beat up, 
detain, frisk, handcuff, and use dogs against Black people in 
certain circumstances in which they do not do the same to White 
people.
    When armed agents of the State are harming American 
citizens in our name, we, the people, must ask why.
    In the past 2 weeks, we have seen acts of grace and bravery 
by police officers. Cops in New York took a knee. In Houston, 
Chief Acevedo arranged for an honor guard to accompany Mr. 
Floyd's body when he came home.
    Unfortunately, we have also witnessed, these past 2 weeks, 
police officers commit deplorable acts of violence against the 
citizens they've sworn to serve and protect. In New York, 
officers drove two large police vehicles into a crowd of 
protesters. In Atlanta, officers broke the window of a car, 
dragged out two college students, and shot them with a stun 
gun.
    In Buffalo, a police officer knocked a 75-year-old man to 
the ground, but what happened next was just as bad. When two 
officers were disciplined for that criminal conduct, 57 other 
officers quit the squad in protest. President Obama's task 
force on policing decried the warrior mentality present among 
too many law enforcement officers. In Buffalo, the Nation saw 
warriors on steroids.
    African-American and Hispanic people disproportionately 
bear the cost. Blacks are about 20 percent of the population of 
Minneapolis but 60 percent of the people who cops use violence 
against. The result is that there are more Black people in the 
criminal legal system today than there were slaves in 1850.
    When I mentioned to a young man I mentor that if he 
attended protests he should wear a mask, he said he certainly 
would try, but he wanted me to know that, as a young Black man, 
he has a greater risk of dying from police violence than from 
the coronavirus. According to the National Academy of Science, 
1 in 1,000 African-American men and boys will be killed by the 
police.
    What African Americans need to realize equal justice under 
the law is for selective enforcement and police brutality to 
end. We need the police to stop killing us, to stop beating us 
up, to stop arresting us in situations in which they would not 
do those things to White people.
    The Justice in Policing Act is a commonsense reform. Among 
other things, it requires cops to be trained in understanding 
racial bias.
    In Minneapolis, as three officers crushed the life out of 
Mr. Floyd and another served as a lookout, somebody in the 
crowd said to the cops, ``He's human, bro.'' These four 
officers did not treat Mr. Floyd like a human being. Too often, 
police work seems to enforce the dehumanization of people of 
color. Understanding the history and reality of racism in the 
United States will make our men and women in blue more 
effective officers.
    In the end, this hearing is about the legitimacy and 
sustainability of our democracy. ``No justice, no peace'' is 
not a threat; it is simply a description of how the world 
works.
    The multiracial, multigenerational demonstrations that have 
risen up all over the United States reflect the wonderful 
diversity of our great Nation and the potential of ordinary 
citizens to make our country live up to its highest ideals.
    The Justice in Policing Act of 2020 heralds the urgency of 
transformation and the promise for all Americans of equal 
justice under the law.
    [The statement of Mr. Butler follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Butler.
    Our next Witness is Benjamin Crump. Benjamin Crump is the 
founder and principal owner of Ben Crump Law. He is also 
currently representing George Floyd's family. Mr. Crump 
received his J.D. and B.A. from Florida State University.
    Mr. Crump, you may begin.

                     STATEMENT OF BEN CRUMP

    Mr. Crump. Thank you, Chair Nadler and distinguished 
Members of the Committee.
    I know all the speakers have 5 minutes to speak, but I wish 
it was 8 minutes and 46 seconds, not as a symbolic gesture but 
as an actual, exact time reference of how long George Floyd 
literally begged--he literally narrated a documentary of his 
death, begging for his life, saying, ``I can't breathe,'' and 
calling for his mama.
    The death of George Floyd has galvanized the world and 
mobilized Americans to demand a more just system of policing, 
because it's become painfully obvious that what we have right 
now are two systems of justice: One for White Americans and 
another for Black Americans.
    George is one in a long line of Black Americans who 
unjustly are killed at the hands of police or, in George's 
case, at the knee of the police, including Breonna Taylor, 
Pamela Turner, Botham Jean, Michael Brown, Stephon Clark, Eric 
Garner, Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, Terence Crutcher, Laquan 
McDonald, just to name a few. The list goes on and on. It is 
important, Mr. Chair, that we remember their names.
    It is way past time that we revised the role of police to 
become peacekeepers and community partners. Of course, they 
must be prepared to protect themselves and the public in direct 
life-threatening situations, but these should be the exception 
and not the rule.
    What we are witnessing throughout our country is not that. 
American as being tear gassed in the streets, hit with rubber 
bullets, shoved violently to the ground, cracking their sculls 
against the pavement, being bloodied with batons. For what? For 
demanding justice for Black Americans.
    Our constitutional rights are under attack, and not in the 
shadows but in the broad daylight.
    Changing the behavior of police and their relationships 
with people of color starts at the top. We need a national 
standard for policing behavior, built on transparency and 
accountability.
    The only reason we know what happened to George Floyd is 
because it was captured on video. The advent of video evidence 
is bringing into the light what long was hidden. It's revealing 
what Black Americans have known for a long, long time: That it 
is dangerous for a Black person to have an encounter with a 
police officer.
    Given the incidents than have led to this moment in time, 
it should be mandatory for police officers to wear body cams 
and should be considered obstruction of justice to turn them 
off. Like a Black box data recorder in an airplane, body cams 
replace competing narratives with a single narrative, the 
truth, with what we see with our own eyes.
    Second, insist that police officers only use the level of 
force needed based on the level of threat actually posed by the 
circumstances.
    We've seen way too many Black people shot in the back or 
unarmed Black people shot and killed or a handcuffed Black man, 
face down on the pavement, asphyxiated by a knee on his neck 
for 8 minutes and 46 seconds though he posed no threat at all.
    Neck restraints were used by Minnesota police more than 200 
times, resulting in suspects losing consciousness at least 44 
times. Lethal restraints like chokeholds and strangleholds 
should be outlawed.
    Finally, reform how qualified immunity applies to police 
officers. If officers know they have immunity, they Act with 
impunity. If officers know they can unjustly take the life of a 
Black person with no accountability, they will continue to do 
so. That's what you saw in the eyes of Derek Chauvin, with his 
hand casually tucked in his pocket as he extinguished the life 
of George Floyd.
    Accountability requires that officers face public 
consequences for unjustly taking a life or brutalizing a fellow 
American that they are sworn to protect and serve.
    Too often, many officers are silent in the face of evil 
because of the ``blue shield,'' the brotherhood of police 
officers which fosters systematic racism and abuse. There's a 
higher brotherhood that God calls us to honor, the brotherhood 
of mankind, Black and white. That's what we're witnessing in 
the diversity of the protesters filling our streets even today, 
and that's the brotherhood our police officers must honor above 
all.
    The Founding Fathers knew they had not built an infallible 
system, a faultless union, but they did task us with the 
perpetual duty to aim for it: A more perfect union, of justice, 
liberty, resilience, hope, and compassion. We have to do 
better, and we must strive to live up to those American ideals. 
We are better than this.
    Chair, Members of the Committee, you have the power to make 
this moment in history the tipping point so many of us have 
been waiting for, fighting for, and praying for, that Americans 
are marching for. You have the power to make sure that George 
Floyd's death is not in vain.
    I've been asking for us to take a breath. First, the breath 
that George Floyd was denied. Second, take a breath to consider 
how we use police in our society and how we hold them 
accountable for the tremendous power we place in their hands. 
Third, to take a breath to consider how we create a more 
perfect union that extends equal protection and equal justice 
to people of color. Finally, to take a breath for George Floyd, 
because his life mattered and Black lives matter.
    I thank you, Chair.
    [The statement of Mr. Crump follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Crump.
    Ron Davis is the legislative affairs Chair of the National 
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, or NOBLE. 
From 2013-2017, Mr. Davis directed the Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services at the U.S. Department of Justice. 
In 2014, he was appointed Executive Director of the President's 
Task Force on 21st Century Policing.
    Mr. Davis received his B.A. from Southern Illinois 
University and completed the Senior Executives in State and 
Local Government Program at Harvard University Kennedy School 
of Government.
    Mr. Davis, you may begin.

                     STATEMENT OF RON DAVIS

    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Good morning, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member Collins. I want 
to thank you for hosting this hearing. I come to you today on 
behalf of NOBLE. On behalf of our president, Police Chief C.J. 
Davis, we want to again thank you for allowing us to testify 
today.
    As you mentioned, before serving as the Director of the 
COPS Office, I spent close to 30 years as a police officer, 20 
years in Oakland and about 9 years as the police chief in the 
city of East Palo Alto.
    I do want to say, NOBLE joins the Nation in condemning the 
heinous killing of Mr. Floyd, and we offer our heartfelt 
condolences and prayers to the Floyd family. I want to thank 
Mr. Floyd this morning for his powerful testimony and strong 
recommendations.
    Yet, Mr. Chair, with no debate, we know George Floyd is 
just one in a long list of tragedies. We also know that the 
vast majority, as the reverend had mentioned, of police 
officers in this country are decent, honorable, committed men 
and women to service.
    We know that the core problem of policing is not just about 
a few bad apples. I think too often we focus on the bad apples, 
and we need to acknowledge, Mr. Chair, that the problem in 
policing today is the continued use of draconian policing 
systems that still suffer from structural racism and severe 
institutional deficiencies. Under these systems, even good cops 
have bad outcomes, and bad cops and racist cops can operate 
with impunity.
    Most of the systems that we are talking about that 
determine why we police, how we police, where we police, were 
constructed in the 1940-1960s, and they were actually 
constructed to enforce Jim Crow and other discriminatory 
practices.
    In other words, this Committee should acknowledge--the 
Nation needs to acknowledge--that our policing systems are, in 
fact, not broken; they are doing what they were actually 
designed to do.
    To understand this hard truth is to recognize that this 
system cannot be reformed; it must be reconstructed.
    It also means that the demand for policing reform should 
not require an indictment against all police. In fact, it is 
our hope that our brothers and sisters who wear the badge will 
not only embrace this moment but will join this movement and 
become a part of the change that is needed.
    We've seen police chiefs and officers walk with crowds and 
take a knee, and that is great. We now need them to take a 
stance and stand with the community as we reconstruct this 
unjust system.
    The first step in reconstructing a new system is to 
strengthen police accountability and trust with our 
communities. This, in fact, was the core charge that President 
Obama gave the Task Force on 21st Century Policing, and, until 
2015, the task force provided recommendations for police 
agencies and their communities to advance this.
    Unfortunately, the Trump Administration not only tossed 
this report away, but it also actually retreated backwards to 
the so-called ``law and order'' days--days in which the mass 
arrest of men of color was this Nation's crime strategy.
    We need to abandon that dangerous rhetoric, we need to 
abandon the idea of ``law and order,'' and we need to embrace a 
``peace and justice'' mantra that enhances public safety and 
assures justice for all.
    Mr. Chair, we need the support of the Federal Government to 
further advance the recommendations from President Obama's task 
force. We also need to make some immediate actions.
    In the interest of time, I will say that we support the 
eight bullets that Vanita Gupta outlined, with the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights. I won't go over those eight bullets 
since she's already given the testimony.
    We also believe that we need to immediately rescind the 
Sessions memo so that the Department's Civil Rights Division, 
the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, can 
immediately restore the use of consent decrees where 
appropriate.
    We believe that we should restore programs within the COPS 
Office that allows police departments to do voluntary reviews 
so that they can identify deficiencies in their operating 
systems and structural programs. We believe that all police 
agencies should obtain some type of accreditation before 
receiving Federal funds.
    We also need the Federal Government's help in supporting 
local and State efforts. In the absence of this DOJ, it's been 
the States that have been stepping up. So, for example, the 
State of California and Governor Gavin Newsom passed Assembly 
Bill 392, the most comprehensive use-of-force reform bill in 
the Nation.
    Last week, Governor Newsom also ordered the State to stop 
teaching the carotid hold, or carotid restraints, and chokehold 
and made clear that he would support any legislation that 
prohibits those techniques.
    In Illinois, former Attorney General Lisa Madigan and 
current Attorney General Kwame Raoul used their office to 
negotiate with the city of Chicago to adopt the most 
comprehensive consent decree in the Nation's history.
    In California, Attorney General Becerra used his office to 
conduct pattern-of-practice investigations, provide 
organizational assessments and use-of-force reviews.
    Most recently, in Minnesota, Attorney General Keith Ellison 
worked with Department of Safety Commissioner John Harrington 
and used their office to convene a task force, a working group, 
of diverse people to address the issue of police deadly 
encounters. Now, unfortunately, the group released their report 
just weeks after Mr. Floyd was killed so that it was too late 
to impact that tragedy, but it does provide a roadmap for 
Minnesota as it moves forward.
    These are all activities that the Trump Administration has 
walked away from and these are all activities that are sorely 
needed if we're going to address police reform.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. In sum, the recommendations that have been 
outlined, the ones I just mentioned, the ones that Ms. Gupta 
outlined, the ones that you heard today, are all contained in 
the Justice in Policing Act. We appreciate Congresswoman Bass, 
yourself, Mr. Nadler, and all the cosponsors for introducing 
this comprehensive bill. NOBLE looks forward to working with 
this body as you move the bill forward.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Davis. As we proceed, there are immediate steps that I 
believe police leaders and departments can take. I want to 
basically quickly go over five points that I would ask my 
colleagues--
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much. Can he hear me?
    Mr. Davis. --police chiefs and police leaders to follow. 
These are the steps that we can do to start the race to 
reconciliation that was mentioned earlier that we have yet to 
do and to start the reimagining policing process.
    The first step is to publicly acknowledge the historical 
and current--too often we just say ``historical''--but the 
historical and current police abuses that occur and its impacts 
on communities of color. The more police chiefs acknowledge 
this and do so publicly, the more we can start our 
reconciliation.
    Second, the acceptance of responsibility to change our 
policing system and its culture.
    Third, I think it is time for all police officers to 
reaffirm their oath of office to the Constitution and to the 
core principles of our democracy. I say that because we need to 
be reminded that the oath is to the Constitution, not to each 
other, not to the police department, not to the police union, 
but to the Constitution and our democracy.
    Fourth, collaborate with community to redefine and 
reimagine policing, including the development of reinvestment 
strategies that rely less on police and more on community-based 
safety programs.
    As we debate about the departments, I think we can have 
some core agreement that we definitely need to invest in the 
social programs, the community-based programs that go more to 
the core problems of crime--
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Davis, your time has expired.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    
   
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Davis, thank you for your testimony. You 
time has expired.
    Our next Witness is Daniel Bongino. Daniel Bongino has 
served with both the New York Police Department and the United 
States Secret Service. He is also a best-selling author and 
host of ``The Dan Bongino Show'' podcast.
    Mr. Bongino has an MBA from Penn State University and both 
an M.A. and B.A. from the City University of New York.
    Mr. Bongino, you may begin.

                  STATEMENT OF DANIEL BONGINO

    Mr. Bongino. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Jordan, I deeply 
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this critical issue.
    Ms. Underwood Jacobs, Mr. Floyd, deeply sorry for your 
loss. I can only hope you take some solace in the justice that 
we all pray is to come. I mean that. That was a tough video to 
watch, for all of us.
    Police Officer Dan O'Sullivan, he was a friend of mine. We 
went through the police academy together. Sadly, we lost touch 
when we graduated, so we were both assigned to separate 
precincts, different areas of the city of New York.
    Dan and I with a briefly reunited in 1998, but it was no 
joyous occasion. I was reunited with Dan in a hospital in 
Queens, where he was hospitalized with devastating injuries 
after pulling over, off duty, to assist a driver in a critical 
emergency situation. He was hurt, badly.
    Dan was the very essence of a public servant. Dan always 
put himself last, while putting his commitment to the safety 
and security of the public he pledged to serve always first. 
That was the Dan I knew.
    During my employment with both the NYPD and the United 
States Secret Service, I had the honor and profound privilege 
of working with agents and police officers who had committed 
themselves to a higher cause. Just like Dan, I met so many of 
these committed public servants that, sadly, I can't even 
recall all their names anymore.
    These are good men and women. Yes, as with any provision, 
there are officers, no question, who aren't suited for the job. 
Some will cause trouble, sometimes worse. We've seen that. In 
my experience, this is rare and becoming rarer.
    The special agents I worked with and remain friends with to 
this day in the Secret Service joined Members of the NYPD and 
New York City Fire Department on that tragic day of September 
11, 2001. Do you know what they did? They sprinted into those 
burning buildings and personally escorted people out. As we all 
know, those buildings collapsed, taking many of those brave 
NYPD and FDNY souls with them. Those brave souls were running 
into the buildings; everyone else was evacuating.
    These are the types of people I was honored and deeply 
privileged to work with. Public safety came first. Everything 
else came second, sometimes even their own families.
    The ``defund the police'' movement will target these 
heroes. They are the police, these people. It's not some 
amorphous mass that will be affected. It's real heroes, in 
real-time, right now.
    Removing these heroes from your communities and my 
community will do nothing but ensure chaos and destruction. 
Police officers are the front lines, putting themselves between 
the evildoers among us and the honest, hardworking Americans 
just yearning for some security and prosperity and a small 
slice of Americana.
    We can and should commit to police accountability, there's 
no question about that. We can do it without shredding the thin 
wall between civilization and chaos.
    There are few jobs in the country as stressful as policing. 
I receive an email or a text a few times a year notifying me 
about the death or injury of a police officer I knew, worked 
with, or knew someone I worked with. Imagine if that was 
happening at your job. Think about that, just for a minute. God 
forbid you found out a coworker of yours was killed or injured 
in the line of duty, in the course of doing their job. You 
didn't just get the text; you got this text a couple times a 
year. That's policing. That's what they do. They risk their own 
lives for yours.
    I'll say in closing, I spoke at an event for police 
officers years ago, and a spouse of one of these heroes said 
this. She said, ``The most wonderful sound in the world for the 
spouse of a police officer is the sound of Velcro at night. You 
may be saying, why Velcro? Because it's how a police officer's 
body armor is secured to their bodies. When that body armor 
comes off and that sound echoes in their ears, the families of 
these heroes know that they're finally home safety.''
    I ask you, please, with the greatest of respect and 
humility, please stop this ``defund the police'' abomination 
before someone gets hurt.
    Thank you for your time.
    [The statement of Mr. Bongino follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Bongino.
    Our next Witness is Phillip Goff. Phillip Goff is the co-
founder and President of the Center for Policing Equity. He 
also serves as the inaugural Franklin A. Thomas Professor in 
Policing Equity at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
    Dr. Goff received his Ph.D. and M.A. from Stanford 
University and an A.B. from Harvard University.
    Dr. Goff, you may begin.

                   STATEMENT OF PHILLIP GOFF

    Mr. Goff. Thank you, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, 
and Members of the House Judiciary Committee.
    [Inaudible] I want to say that we mourn with you.
    To Mr. Floyd, I want to thank you, especially, for your 
powerful witness in front of this body and the entire country. 
I offer my deepest condolences for the circumstances that made 
your presence here necessary. I want to say that your words 
have moved a Nation that was already mourning with you.
    To everyone gathered, it is my honor to be back before the 
Committee to provide testimony on policing practices and law 
enforcement accountability.
    My background and training are in behavioral science. I am 
the inaugural Franklin A. Thomas Professor in Policing Equity. 
I was a witness for the President's Task Force on 21st Century 
Policing; a member of the National Academy of Sciences' 
Committee that issued a consensus report on proactive policing. 
I was one of three leads on the recently concluded Department 
of Justice-funded National Initiative for Building Community 
Trust and Justice.
    I am likely best known for my work with the Center for 
Policing Equity, the leading research and action organization 
focused on equity in policing. My testimony today is in that 
capacity.
    CPE maintains the National Science Foundation-funded 
National Justice Database, which we understand is the largest 
collection of police behavioral data in the world. Our work 
focuses on combining police behavioral data, psychological 
survey data, and data from the U.S. Census to estimate not just 
racial disparities in police outcomes, such as stops and use of 
force, but the proportion of those disparities for which law 
enforcement are actually responsible and can do something 
about.
    I have to say that what we have seen in the streets of the 
United States over the past 2 weeks nearly defies description. 
Some have called it massive protest; others have called it a 
riot; others have called it a revolution. What I am confident 
in is that what we have seen has been larger than the incident 
that sparked collective outrage and is still tearing at the 
fabric of our democracy.
    What has spilled out onto the streets of this Nation is 
even larger than our grief at the brutal extension of George 
Floyd's life and the life of 1,000 citizens per year killed by 
police, a number that has not changed significantly since 
newspapers began cataloguing those numbers in 2015.
    What we are seeing on the streets of the United States is a 
``past due'' notice for the unpaid debt owed Black people for 
400-plus years. If the responses to this moment are not 
proportional to that debt, I fear we will continue to pay it, 
with interest, again and again and again.
    Turning to the complex issue of police reform, I applaud 
the work of Chair Nadler and Congresswoman Bass in putting 
forth a comprehensive proposal to rethink how we best hold law 
enforcement accountable to the ideal of equality. The Justice 
in Policing Act of 2020 contains a number of critical reforms, 
including banning neck restraints and creating a national 
registry of police misconduct.
    In my capacity at CPE, however, I want to spend a moment 
focusing on what science says about bias in policing. I feel 
it's important to set a baseline, especially with all the false 
information circulating in the media, given the general vacuum 
in the ecosystem on evidence in this area.
    First, there is no doubt that black, Native, and Latinx 
people in this country have more contact with law enforcement 
than do White people. There's also relative agreement that 
where there are fewer public services--so fewer drug treatment, 
mental health, job training programs--law enforcement has more 
contact with residents.
    There is evidence of racial bias in who is contacted by 
police and who is targeted for force. However, it is also the 
case that, clearly, not all the disparities we see are from 
police policy or behavior. It is some but not all.
    Given this understanding of bias in policing, what are we 
to do? As we've already heard today, the most recent debate is 
between institutional reform and defunding the police.
    While there is no quantitative research literature on 
abolishing policing, there are reasons to believe that many 
within Black communities are not fully aligned with this 
vision. Historical and polling results reveal that Black 
communities support less biased and less deadly law enforcement 
more than eliminating it. With the mood of the Nation changing 
so quickly, so too may these attitudes.
    Still, to the degree that a path forward involves using 
police budgets to invest in Black communities, the process must 
be led by evidence--evidence about what programs work, both in 
policing and in communities, and evidence about where cities 
can safely receive a higher return on their investment in 
community empowerment.
    Regardless, there is no need to wait for a decision on 
police budgets to invest in our most vulnerable communities. 
Wherever the country lands on police budgets, we can all agree, 
the communities that have the resources to solve their own 
problems and do not need to call the police in the first place 
are safer communities that are better equipped to realize the 
American Dream. There is no reason to avoid this obvious truth, 
and there is no reason not to Act on it now.
    As I previously mentioned, the Justice in Policing Act of 
2020 contains the best Federal police reform package of the 
bills I have before this Congress, and CPE supports its 
passage.
    Many of our partners in law enforcement--
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Goff. --the chiefs who are experts on public safety, 
support many of its provisions, especially the Federal ban on 
neck restraints and the implementation of a national registry 
of police officers who have been fired for misconduct. These 
reforms are long overdue, and such commonsense reforms should 
be enacted immediately.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much. Thank you very--
    Mr. Goff. More specifically, and briefly, I want to 
emphasize--
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Goff. --the need for a national registry of police 
officers who've been fired for misconduct is a reform that will 
increase transparency and the public's trust in law enforcement 
agencies.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Goff. Doctors and lawyers, those tasked with protecting 
life and liberty--as officers have to do both on their jobs 
every day--those, along with many other professions, are 
required to be licensed, and their employment data are shared 
across State lines by appropriate entities and in appropriate 
ways.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Goff. Your 5 
minutes have expired.
    [The statement of Mr. Goff follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Chair Nadler. Our next Witness is Marc Morial. Marc Morial 
is the President and CEO of the National Urban League. Mr. 
Morial also served as Mayor of New Orleans from 1994-2002. He 
received his J.D. from Georgetown Law School and his B.A. from 
the University of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Morial, you may begin.

                    STATEMENT OF MARC MORIAL

    Mr. Morial. Thank you very much, Chair Nadler and Ranking 
Member Jordan, the Members of the Committee.
    To Representative Bass, thank you for your incredible 
leadership on this issue.
    First, we at the National Urban League strongly support the 
passage of the Justice in Policing Act.
    To Mr. Floyd and Ms. Underwood Jacobs, I join in sharing 
our thoughts and our prayers with you on your losses. Your 
courage is admirable. Thank you very much.
    Between 1882-1968--that's an 86-year period--4,742 people, 
mostly black, were lynched in the United States. These murders 
were turned into public spectacles, with people being tortured, 
mutilated, and burned in front of hundreds of spectators 
mocking their deaths.
    In 1922, the United States House of Representatives had the 
courage to pass a bill to make lynching a Federal crime. 
However, White supremacists in the United States Senate 
filibustered that bill and blocked 200 attempts to pass that 
bill--a blockage which continues to this day in the United 
States Senate.
    Imagine, if in 1922 the Congress of the United States had 
demonstrated the courage to make lynching a Federal crime, how 
many of those 4,742 people would not have died?
    Today, we look at most recent history, and we see, from 
1954-1965, dozens of civil rights activists were murdered, 
including the four little girls at that Birmingham church in 
1963.
    This Congress, in 1964 and 1965, this Congress, with 
bipartisan majorities and the courage of a Southern President 
who had previously supported segregation, demonstrated the 
courage and the conviction to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 
the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the 1968 Fair Housing Act.
    Since 2013, when Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, 
1,291 Black people have been shot and killed by the police. 
Over 100 of them were unarmed.
    Now, in 2020, as we stand just 6 years ago from the 250th 
anniversary of this Nation, before the eyes of the world, 
George Floyd was lynched on the streets of Minneapolis, 
Minnesota.
    The world, from Hungary to New Zealand, to Australia, to 
Paris, to London, to big cities, small towns, every village, 
every hamlet, every neighborhood in this Nation, have risen up 
in mainly peaceful protests to simply say: Enough is enough. 
Enough is enough, and Black lives matter.
    This Justice in Policing Act represents a bold and clear 
step forward, but an opportunity at a historic time in American 
history, as to whether this Nation's elected representatives 
will hear the pain, hear the cries, hear the suffering, hear 
the outrage, and realize this is not the time for a de minimis, 
backroom, Washington political compromise, that this is a 
moment for bold and courageous action and the type of action 
where, 20, 40, 60 years hence, history will ask, your children 
will ask, your grandchildren will ask: Where did you stand? 
Where did you stand?
    This is a moment not of politics. This is not a moment of 
Black or white. This is a moment of morality. It's a moment of 
human decency.
    This Act does a number of things. It bans some practices 
that we all know have to be banned: Chokeholds, no-knock 
warrants, racial profiling.
    It creates a multitiered accountability system, some 
through the system of the courts, in both civil and criminal 
proceedings, and strengthens the hands of the Justice 
Department so that it can do its job.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mayor Morial.
    Mr. Morial. It also suggests an accreditation program.
    So, let me just say one last thing, Mr. Chair, if you'll 
indulge me, and I'll go back to what I said earlier.
    I am asking this Congress, this body and the United States 
Senate, to recognize the gravity of this moment and the 
importance of this time and to stand with the people of this 
Nation to say enough is enough, Black lives matter.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mayor Morial.
    We've now heard from all the Witnesses before the 
Committee. The Committee will now stand in recess for 45 
minutes for lunch. As a matter of safety, there will be no 
eating in this room. The Committee will reconvene in 45 
minutes. The Committee is in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Nadler. The Committee will be in order.
    We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions. 
I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    On May 25th, in the twilight of Memorial Day, Derek Chauvin 
of the Minneapolis Police Department held his knee to George 
Floyd's motionless neck and pressed his face to the pavement 
for 8 minutes and 46 seconds as Mr. Floyd pleaded for relief, 
repeating the words, ``I can't breathe.''
    Mr. Floyd, I'm sure you've seen the video. Can you think of 
any reason why Officer Chauvin would need to hold his knee on 
your brother's neck for over 8 minutes?
    Mr. Floyd. No, sir. I don't really know why he did it. 
Personally, I think it was personal because they worked at the 
same place. So, for him to do something like that, it had to be 
premeditated and he wanted to do it.
    Chair Nadler. Intentional.
    Mr. Floyd. Yes, sir.
    Chair Nadler. Now, we've learned since then that Officer 
Chauvin faced at least 17 misconduct complaints during his 
career on the Minneapolis police force. He was named in a 
brutality lawsuit. He shot and critically wounded a man after a 
brief and nonviolent confrontation.
    Mr. Floyd, how did you feel when you learned about Officer 
Chauvin's history of misconduct?
    Mr. Floyd. He should have been off the force. Any officer 
committing an Act like that shouldn't be able to get a job in 
any county after they get fired. The guy--they had enough 
evidence to sit there and fire them, but they didn't have 
enough evidence to arrest him? I'm not understanding that.
    Chair Nadler. Ms. Gupta, does this make any sense? Should 
we keep police officers with long histories of misconduct 
complaints on patrol?
    Ms. Gupta. No, we shouldn't. It is why The Leadership 
Conference has pushed for the establishment of a national 
police misconduct registry. It's a national registry of all 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials that would 
be created containing information on misconduct complaints, 
discipline and termination records, and records of 
certification.
    I will tell you, there is actually significant law 
enforcement support for this kind of registry, and prosecutors 
around the country have asked for this kind of registry. Chiefs 
in particular have said that this is a real problem when they 
don't have this kind of information when they're making hiring 
decisions.
    Chair Nadler. That's why we have the registry provision in 
the Policing in Justice bill that we're considering.
    Ms. Gupta. That's correct.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Now, Chief Acevedo, you manage a large urban police force. 
Are repeated misconduct complaints a red flag?
    Chief Acevedo. Yes, they are, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. What do you think we can do about that?
    Chief Acevedo. Well, we make it real clear to our officers 
and our employees that none of them are cats, that you don't 
get nine lives. Quite frankly, we use the tenets of progressive 
discipline.
    Sometimes labor will argue, why are you firing somebody if 
you believe in progressive discipline? The answer is simple. If 
the crime or the policy violation supports termination, 
indefinite suspension, that's what we do, whether it's the 
first offense or the third offense.
    A pattern of misconduct cannot be tolerated, should not be 
tolerated. That's why it's important to also use the pattern of 
complaints, whether they're sustained or not sustained or 
unfounded, to look for any type of patterns of conduct, to see 
if there's any commonality, to see if we need to take a deeper 
look at our employees.
    Chair Nadler. So, you would think it's a good idea to have 
a national registry so that one police department knew about 
the misconduct of an officer at a different police department 
before they hired him?
    Chief Acevedo. Well, I can tell you on my individual 
capacity, Mr. Chair, that I do support that concept. We've been 
as an organization very busy operationally in the last 2 weeks, 
and we're going to start having our deliberations on all these 
matters hopefully Friday and we will come back with an official 
position. I can tell you the individual chiefs that I know that 
I've spoken with absolutely support it.
    Having said that, even absent a national registry, it is 
incumbent upon hiring agencies to do thorough backgrounds. The 
internal affairs packages, complaint histories, everything is 
available at the previous employing histories of departments.
    So, due diligence is important with or without a registry, 
but personally I do support that concept.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    My time has expired.
    Mr. Gaetz.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Floyd, I don't know that the cameras picked it up or 
saw it, but when Angela talked about her brother dying, I saw a 
physical reaction from you. I saw you lean over in your chair. 
I thought I noticed your body even tremble with empathy and 
care for Angela and her brother Pat who passed away.
    If you could say anything to the people who killed Pat, 
what would it be?
    Mr. Floyd. Life is precious. Everybody should be able to 
live and be able to walk this Earth in a journey that they want 
to. Nobody should have to be filled with hatred and so much 
animosity that they want to kill somebody.
    Dr. King said a long time ago he wanted everybody around 
the world to be able to join hands together. I think right now, 
if he was here right now, he would understand that the world is 
united right now and we all are coming together.
    Mr. Gaetz. That is so powerful, and I deeply thank you for 
that. I want to test that sense of unity.
    Mr. Chair, if we could get the Witnesses who are joining 
remotely to be on the screen so we could see them, I have a 
question I would like to ask everyone. I apologize for the 
crude nature in which I have to ask this but there's just so 
many Witnesses.
    If you believe that we should defund the police, will you 
please raise your hand?
    Yes, is there anyone on the--okay. So, that's unifying and 
wonderful that here we are gathered--
    Ms. Ifill. Can you tell me--can you please tell me--excuse 
me.
    Mr. Gaetz. I'm sorry.
    Ms. Ifill. I actually have an answer to that question.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, I'm sure someone will be able to ask you 
that question, but I have limited time here.
    I didn't see anyone raise their hand to defund the police. 
I certainly didn't see any of the Republican Witnesses.
    Ms. Ifill. I take issue with the way you asked the 
question.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, I'm going to now go through and see where 
that sentiment may have been reflected.
    Here's a tweet from two of our congressional colleagues 
supporting this group Black Visions Minnesota.
    The next, please.
    Then here's that group, that same group, Black Visions 
Minnesota, that my congressional colleagues are raising money 
for, saying that they should--we should end the police.
    Can we go to the next one?
    Then here's that same organization retweeting: Rebel scum, 
abolish the police.
    Then here's the same group saying that instead of police we 
need therapists, doctors, and street medics, not cops.
    Mr. Bongino, in your experience, every time someone calls 
911, would a therapist or a medic be sufficient or sometime do 
people need cops?
    Mr. Bongino. I'm quite unclear how a medic is going to help 
with an armed subject who is assaulting his wife in a domestic 
violence situation or elsewhere. I'm not sure how that's going 
to be of any value.
    Mr. Gaetz. Here again is that same group saying that we 
need lasers to disorient surveillance cameras and we need water 
balloons filled with milk to throw at people. Again, this is 
the organization that my congressional colleagues are raising 
money to support.
    If we could go to the next one.
    Then here again that same organization that multiple 
Members of Congress are supporting saying it's not enough to 
only abolish police or prisons. We need to abolish race, 
abolish ICE, abolish the military, abolish the State, abolish 
the borders.
    Again, this is what our colleagues are raising money for. 
It's not just any Member of Congress. It's actually one of our 
treasured colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, the gentlelady 
from Washington, raising money for this very same organization.
    Ms. Underwood Jacobs, your brother is someone who was part 
of this law enforcement community when he gave his life. When 
you learn that my colleagues in Congress are raising money for 
an organization that promotes defunding the police, destroying 
our borders, defunding our military, and taking apart the State 
all together, how does that make you feel?
    Ms. Underwood Jacobs. Actually, I find that conduct to be 
deplorable. We elect officials to represent everyone. The idea 
to have our communities without protection and safety is wrong.
    So, my response to that would be for people to get out and 
vote and get the right person in office to ensure that we feel 
protected and our children feel protected for generations to 
come.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, I appreciate that greatly.
    Mr. Floyd, again, I appreciate your calls not only today, 
but in the direct aftermath of your brother's killing. You 
showed grace and care for your fellow Americans. I don't know 
if everyone is religious, but I do believe God is working 
through you to try to call us together.
    Finally, I wanted to thank Ms. Bass for the legislation 
she's introduced and that constellation of ideas. While I think 
that we can fine tune elements to ensure that we don't defund 
the police, that we don't make our communities less safe, I do 
think there is not a legitimate defense of chokeholds or 
lynching or bad cops that get shuttled around. You will be able 
to count on Republican cooperation as we hone these ideas and 
hopefully pass them and get them to the President's desk.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    First, let me say what a transformational few weeks this 
has been since the murder of Mr. Floyd. I am grateful to my 
constituents and those around the country who have marched 
peacefully to raise the issue of justice in our country.
    I am grateful to Karen Bass and the Congressional Black 
Caucus, as well as you, Mr. Chair, for your work in putting 
this bill together.
    I think it's important to State at the outset what this 
hearing is about and what it isn't about. It's really about 
this bill and how we can improve the State of policing in the 
United States.
    I've heard several people talk about funding for law 
enforcement. We did that when we passed the HEROES Act. We 
provided funds for local governments to address issues in their 
communities, whether it's health or public safety, and we all 
know that it is the local communities that organize their 
public safety response, not the Federal Government.
    However, when there are police, we want to make sure that 
those police operate in a legal way that doesn't use violence 
against people who pose no violent threat. That's why I would 
like to ask Ms. Ifill if she could address these two questions.
    First, we've incorporated the PEACE Act into this bill, 
which basically outlines when the use of deadly force is 
appropriate. That, coupled with the new standard for 
unwillfulness, that would provide accountability, is my 
question to you. Will those two measures help prevent violence 
against people who are not posing a violent threat?
    Ms. Ifill. Thank you very much, Representative Lofgren. I 
at some point would love to and welcome the opportunity to talk 
about the funding issue. Let me answer the question that you 
asked.
    One of the principal problems that we have found in this 
longstanding systemic issue of police violence against unarmed 
African Americans is the inability to hold officers who engage 
in misconduct accountable.
    Now, this is not just about the individual officer who some 
refer to as a bad apple. This is about a system of 
accountability that must exist if police officers are to 
understand that they cannot engage in certain kinds of conduct 
without impunity.
    Unfortunately, all the legal tools that are available to us 
to hold officers accountable have been weakened or lack the 
sufficient strength and language to allow us to do so.
    So, strengthening the language of the Federal criminal 
statute that will not hold us to such a high standard in 
proving intent of the officer's conduct is critical. So, adding 
a recklessness provision into that language that will allow us 
to get at some of this officer conduct is vitally important.
    What I suggested earlier, qualified immunity on the civil 
side, is vitally important to removing that defense to ensuring 
that we can hold officers accountable. I've spoken to many 
police officers about the culture of impunity around these 
killings and around these acts of brutality. They know, just as 
anyone who is in a system knows, whether they are lawyers, 
whether they are doctors, whether they are police officers, 
that accountability is critical to influencing behavior.
    Unfortunately, our legal system has failed in providing 
that accountability. What this bill tries to do is to go into 
those statutes where the language either isn't sufficiently 
strong or where courts have interpreted the language in such a 
way as to remove the power of the statute to put the tools back 
into the hands of the Department of Justice, but also private 
attorneys and civil rights attorneys, so that they can use the 
law to hold officers accountable.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Ms. Ifill. Thank you very much. My 
time is just about expired.
    I would just like to note that for many years African 
Americans have been mistreated in many cases, in many 
communities by law enforcement. The multiethnic, broad, 
peaceful protests that have arisen around our country that have 
been met also with violence I think have opened the eyes of 
Americans across the United States about the need for reform. I 
think this is an important step forward, and I'm grateful to be 
a part of it.
    I thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    When I turned the TV on the day after Memorial Day and saw 
the brutal murder of George Floyd, it made me sick. The 
depravity that was exhibited there really burned in my soul.
    I would like to say, Mr. Floyd, that not only am I 
personally sad and express my condolences to you and your 
family, but the pain of your brother I think has become the 
pain of America. It's up to us to constructively deal with this 
so that we can do more than just have a press release and make 
a difference.
    After your brother died there were a lot of people who 
legitimately exercised their constitutional rights to 
peacefully protest. There were some who came in that didn't 
want to peacefully protest, and as a result we had riots and 
arson and burning, and people, both protesters as well as 
police, became injured as a result of that.
    That, in my opinion, ended up attempting to destroy the 
legacy of your brother. The people who did decide to raise 
mayhem are going to have to account for that sooner or later, 
whether it's in a court of law or elsewhere.
    I think we have to recognize one thing, and we've heard 
about this from some of the Witnesses as well as in the news 
media, and that is, is that there are good caps and there are 
bad cops. If the police end up being defunded, which I think 
would be a horrible idea, let's look at what the consequence 
will be.
    First, the consequence would be, if there are no police, 
there will be vigilantism. I would submit to you that there 
will probably be more racism if people take the law into their 
own hands than if they relied on the police to investigate 
crimes and to protect the public.
    Second, is that it would hurt the good cops. Ninty-nine 
percent of the people who serve in law enforcement and put 
their lives on the line every day of the year are good cops. 
They want to enforce the law. They don't want to harm anybody, 
and they know that their job is to protect the public. These 
are the cops, if money were taken away, that would end up 
either losing their job or not getting pay raises or maybe even 
getting pay cuts. That would be a travesty of justice, in my 
opinion.
    Now, having said that, I want to turn to my Democratic 
colleagues. A lot of the police union activity that we have 
seen has been to protect bad cops. The police unions in this 
country--and my Democratic colleagues have more friends in 
those unions than we Republicans do--are going to have to step 
up to the plate and to be cooperative with communities in 
getting rid of the bad cops.
    I heard that George Floyd's assailant had 16 allegations of 
misconduct against him. Why was he still on the force? That was 
just an invitation to more misconduct. Unfortunately, Mr. 
Floyd, your brother ended up being the victim of that.
    So, I would hope that as this debate goes on we have 
speedier resolutions of getting rid of bad cops. I see nothing 
wrong with having a bad cop database, but having a database 
isn't going to get somebody fired who ought to be fired. The 
sooner we get the bad cops off the force, the sooner there will 
no longer be any bad apples to spoil the whole barrel.
    I look forward with working with all of you, but you guys 
over on the other side of the aisle, and gals, are going to 
have to be very proactive in telling police unions that it is 
in their interest and in the interest of the vast majority of 
their Membership to get rid of bad cops.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the leadership, 
and the leadership of this entire Committee, and of course the 
Congressional Black Caucus that we are privileged to work with.
    My very deep sympathy, Ms. Jacobs, to you. No one should 
die on the streets of this Nation. We thank you for your 
brother's service.
    Let me speak to my family and constituent from Houston to 
let you know that George Floyd, your brother, your big brother, 
should not have died on the streets of Minneapolis. He did not 
deserve to die. He was an innocent person. The 8 minutes and 46 
seconds which we knelt to reflect was so painfully long that 
the stain and the impact will be seared in our souls forever. 
You have to carry this in your heart.
    So, today I think the good news is that the George Floyd 
Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity bill already named is 
incorporated in this bill, and the Justice in Policing Act is a 
legislative reconstruct to do what you've asked us to do, to do 
what those who are on the streets, who are young and Black and 
brown, White and Asian, are crying out, and we need to hear 
them. I want to say that I have heard them.
    So, Mr. Floyd, if you would, there are many things that you 
have said. I believe in harmony. Do you believe that race 
impacted what happened to your brother?
    Mr. Floyd. I believe--yes, ma'am, I believe that because 
George, wherever he goes, he impacts the place. He talks to a 
lot of people. He's just a gentle giant. So, at that club, and 
Mr. Chauvin worked there, I know that he knew him. Everybody 
knew him. The mayor knew him. He killed my brother just because 
he didn't like him, and it has to be racist. It has to be 
something to do with racism.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. We must get rid of the stain of race.
    In this legislation is an emphasis on discerning what 
executive force is, accreditation.
    Chief Acevedo, if you can emphasize the importance of 
having standards and accreditation of the huge numbers of 
police departments very quickly for us, please. Chief Acevedo, 
thank you for your leadership.
    Chief Acevedo. Thank you, Congresswoman. Thank you for your 
leadership and for your advocacy in Washington.
    We have 18,000 police departments in this Nation with 
18,000 sets of rules, policies, regulations, and 18,000 levels 
of accountability and training.
    We really believe--I believe, and I can tell you that I 
believe once we discuss this as a group with the major city 
chiefs, that we absolutely have to have national standards when 
it comes to critical policies, training regimens, and 
oversight. So, we are prepared to be part of that conversation 
and look forward to the conversation.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Crump, you have seen a lot of these cases. You might 
very briefly for me indicate race. Holding police accountable, 
taking away this barrier of qualified immunity, but 
additionally getting back to consent decrees. If you could 
quickly respond to that.
    I have a question for Mr. Butler, but you--and let me thank 
you for being there from the litany of names, including Eric 
Garner and Trayvon Martin. We have been together, and there's a 
long list that I am not ignoring, Michael Brown. Thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Crump. Yes, ma'am, Congresswoman, and thank you for 
your leadership.
    To answer your question directly, immunity breeds impunity 
for these police. If they have this qualified immunity, we see 
no accountability. It allows for all those names, all those 
Black Lives Matter names to keep adding up, adding up, and 
adding up.
    So, we need that there. We need the registry. We need to 
attack this like it's an epidemic on Black people because 
that's what we see happening in our communities.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. This is about misconduct, Professor 
Butler. I'm glad to be able to say that we know there are good 
police officers. Help us understand--and Mr. Morial gave us a 
history of slavery and the stain of it--how much of that stain 
permeates into policing when they go into the African American 
community and deal with African American men.
    The mike.
    Mr. Butler. Far too often, Congresswoman, officers view 
themselves as warriors, and it's almost as though the 
communities they serve experience them as occupying forces.
    There's been so much attention to the pandemic and how 
we're going to find a treatment. For this epidemic of police 
violence, we already have a treatment. President Obama's 
commission on 21st century policing recommended commonsense 
reforms, many of which are contained in the Justice Act of 
2020.
    So, we don't have to reinvent anything. We know exactly 
what to do now to make police departments more accountable and 
transparent. The question is, will your colleagues have the 
will to implement these commonsense measures.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I believe we can change the 
policing, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    Mr. Gohmert.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I look forward to changing the bill's name 
to George Floyd Bill.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Gohmert.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
    Appreciate all of you being here. We know it is very 
difficult, especially for those of you that have lost loved 
ones. You have our deepest sympathy, as do all those families 
that have lost loved ones in the aftermath.
    This is a serious issue. Mr. Floyd, it's a comfort to a lot 
of us, especially those of us who are Christians, to see the 
way in which you've carried yourself. You've asked for people 
to refrain from violence. We don't need it to lead to worse 
violence. That was atrocious. It's just hard to watch the video 
and not feel great sympathy for your brother and great sympathy 
for you and your family.
    So, it's nice when we get together and talk about potential 
solutions. Hopefully, the majority will allow more input than 
the zero input we've had on the bill so far. It also is 
important to look at different proposals.
    We've heard some say on television let's get rid of--defund 
the police, get rid of them. Some are saying let's get rid of 
the qualified immunity that police have so they don't get sued 
by every single person they come in contact with.
    As a judge, I had judicial immunity, and the thing is, it's 
a qualified immunity. It's not there if you're violating the 
law, and that's as it should be.
    As we look at solutions, and it's been brought up by 
others, but the police unions have defended bad apples. If you 
talk to police, if you know police, heard Dan Bongino talk 
about it, they know who the bad apples are, and most of them 
don't want to have anything to do with them. They don't want to 
be on patrol with them. They don't want to work with them.
    So, how do we get rid of them? I personally have seen where 
you have a bad apple at the top and some righteous 
whistleblower has retaliation against them, and the unions have 
come in and appropriately defended them.
    When it comes to eliminating qualified immunity, I've seen 
what happened with teachers. I had a bill to eliminate--or to 
create qualified immunity for teachers, educational immunity. 
The teachers group never had got on board. I was told it was 
because they make so much money selling liability insurance to 
their members. I'm afraid it might be a cash cow for the 
unions, but that's not what this needs to be about.
    Let me just ask you, Mr. Floyd, if somebody conspires to 
lynch somebody else, do you think a 10-year maximum sentence 
would be appropriate?
    You're shaking your head. Thank you.
    Mr. Floyd. No.
    Mr. Gohmert. Okay. Yeah. Well, I agree with you. Bobby 
Rush, he's a fine man, a just wonderful heart, good-hearted 
man. He had a bill that will make a life sentence if you 
conspire to participate.
    I said, ``Bobby, it should be a life sentence. Why is it 
now 10-year max?'' He said, ``Well, you know, I had it at life 
maximum sentence, but I was told if it was going to pass the 
House it had to be brought down to 10 years.'' Well, I think 
that's an insult.
    I know the Emmett Till bill is part of this overall bill, 
but I would hope we would come together and say 10 years for 
conspiring to lynch is not an adequate maximum punishment. 
Maybe it needs to be lower in a given case, but let's have life 
in there as the penalty, and I would hope to see that.
    I know Chuck Colson once said, our hope in America will not 
arrive on Air Force One. Pastor Scott, I have imminent respect 
for you. Where is your hope for America?
    Mr. Scott. My hope for America is the Lord Jesus Christ. I 
believe that our country was founded on Christian principles, 
that we've invoked the name of God and the presence of God, and 
I believe the hand of God was upon this Nation in its founding.
    Let me say this. When I saw the video of George Floyd--
    Chair Nadler. The time of the Member has expired.
    Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Gohmert. Can he finish his answer?
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Gohmert. I guess we'll have to have you do by video and 
then you can just keep going.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it.
    Chair Nadler. Your mike. Your mike.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
    H.R. 7120 contains in it a change in qualified immunity, 
basically an elimination of qualified immunity, and that's 
important and it's good. Mr. Amash got out on front on that, 
and Mr. Nadler and Mr. Butterfield and I had a bill on it too 
and others. It's an important part of civil rights litigation.
    The employer has to be made responsible as well. Because of 
that, I'm going to propose a bill to have a respondeat superior 
relationship with the employer and make part of that reform 
that respondeat superior will apply to 1983 civil rights 
actions.
    Mr. Crump, in your experience with civil rights actions, 
and I know you've got a lot, would having a respondeat superior 
relationship with the employer be effective in seeing that the 
conduct that was improper was changed?
    Mr. Crump. Absolutely. Also, I think qualified immunity, as 
I've said earlier, allows for police to Act with impunity. I 
think there's a reason we see Black men mostly but also Black 
women being killed by police over and over again and nobody 
ever being held accountable in either criminal or civil, and 
this qualified immunity, almost as if we're condoning it, 
almost as if Black lives don't matter. That's why hopefully 
with this moment we can do something to change that.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    Mayor Morial, part of this bill is a different forum for 
judging police misconduct, an independent prosecutor to 
determine if a law enforcement officer may have violated the 
law in using deadly force or force at all.
    You've been a mayor of a major city. You helped clean up 
the New Orleans Police Department when you were there, and that 
was a tough thing to do.
    How do you feel a provision, which we've got in this bill 
and which Ms. Gupta had in her recommendations, to have an 
independent prosecutor would help restore confidence in the 
public?
    Mr. Morial. I think it's an essential element. The working 
relationship between the normal prosecutor, whether it's a 
State's attorney, a District attorney at the local level, and 
the police department is a hand-in-glove relationship. 
Therefore, friendships are developed, a working relationship is 
developed, and it becomes difficult sometimes for local 
prosecutors to indeed investigate and bring charges against 
police departments or police officers.
    In the Federal system you'll find sometimes the same thing, 
right, where United States attorneys may work very closely with 
the FBI, may work very closely with local law enforcement on 
joint task forces and strike forces to ferret out crime. So, 
independent prosecutors.
    I also think it would allow for there to be expertise, 
teams of investigators that understand these sorts of cases. 
It's just an idea whose time has come.
    The record, unfortunately, has been, whether it's in 
Ferguson with Prosecutor McCulloch, whether it's been in the 
Eric Garner case with the Staten Island district attorney, and 
you could cite numerous examples of just instances where many 
times these local prosecutors cannot bring themselves to bring 
charges even when the evidence is clear.
    So, I think this is a reform whose time has come. I think 
it's a reform that it should not be difficult for people to 
agree to, and I think it would be a vast improvement over the 
status quo.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    With the local prosecutor you also have--the police unions 
make endorsements, as do the Deputy Sheriffs' Association, and 
they endorse the DA or they don't endorse the DA, and they make 
contributions as well. So, while it is the hand-in-glove 
relationship being witnesses and a lot of former officers end 
up being investigators for the DA, they also have that 
political problem.
    Mr. Morial. You're absolutely right, Congressman Cohen, and 
that working relationship is so close and so substantial.
    Mr. Cohen. This bill also--that was another bill I had that 
I worked with Lacy Clay on and it's part of this bill is 
requirement of reportage of deadly force incidents.
    It would help me now--I tried to do so some research myself 
and maybe you can help me--the most egregious civil rights 
cases I know of are ones where White officers killed Black 
officers--Black citizens unlawfully. Garner, Floyd, necks, 
shootings, whatever.
    Other than St. Paul, Minnesota, I didn't see any--this is 
where Black officers were alleged to have done the same type of 
thing. Is it because we don't have statistics to know it, or is 
there something that is said about a systemic racism?
    Mr. Morial. I will say this. We had instances in New 
Orleans where Black officers killed Black citizens. I can't 
think of an instance where a Black officer killed--I can think 
of an instance, one instance where a Black officer killed a 
White citizen. They may be aberrations--
    Mr. Cohen. Were those lawful? Was it lawful actions?
    Mr. Morial. No, not lawful at all.
    Mr. Cohen. No.
    Mr. Morial. No. They were acts of misconduct and acts of 
brutality. I think there's a great database that The Washington 
Post has that pretty much over the last 5 years can give you 
pretty much chapter and verse on all killings of citizens by 
police.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Nadler. The Member yields back.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Floyd and Ms. Jacobs, it took tremendous courage for 
both of you to come here today when you're still grieving the 
loss of your brothers. I hope we can honor their memory by 
enacting meaningful reforms that prevent future senseless acts 
of violence and begin a healing process that makes us a 
stronger, more unified Nation.
    I also want to thank the other Witnesses for appearing 
today and helping us to determine what changes ought to be 
made. We must enact reforms that ensure accountability for 
police misconduct, not defund, or dismantle police departments.
    I represent the First Congressional District of Ohio, which 
includes most of the city of Cincinnati. Nearly two decades 
ago, in 2001, an African American young man named Timothy 
Thomas was fatally shot by a police officer in the Over-The-
Rhine neighborhood in Cincinnati.
    Following protests and civil unrest, unfortunately 
including rioting, police representatives, community leaders, 
and city and Federal officials entered into something called 
the Collaborative Agreement with the goal of building a 
positive, constructive relationship between the Cincinnati 
Police Department and the neighborhoods that they serve. 
Reaching the agreement required everyone involved putting aside 
their political agendas and working together.
    What did the Collaborative Agreement do? Well, it addressed 
use-of-force situations, called for de-escalation training for 
the police, body cameras, and formed a citizen complaint 
authority, among other things.
    Once the framework of the agreement was in place then 
Senator Mike DeWine, who is now our governor, then Congressman 
Rob Portman, who is now in the Senate, and I worked closely 
together to help secure the Federal funding needed to implement 
its provisions.
    The results haven't been perfect, but we've seen a dramatic 
improvement in Cincinnati police-community relations. Trust and 
good will have been restored. Arrests and serious crimes have 
decreased in Cincinnati. Excessive use of force by police 
officers has also decreased, as has violence against police 
officers.
    Perhaps most importantly, when problems do arise, they're 
handled in a predominantly civil, respectful manner due to 
years of cooperation and direct, honest communication between 
the police and our communities.
    Given the success we've had in Cincinnati, perhaps the 
Collaborative Agreement could be the starting point for other 
cities across the country who need to repair police-community 
relations. The process required to craft such an agreement can 
lead to better communication, understanding, and if undertaken 
seriously, greater respect between all parties involved.
    Mr. Bongino, I'll start with you if I can. Is this the 
direction that you think perhaps American cities ought to move 
towards if they want to improve police-community relations?
    Mr. Bongino. I think it's a terrific idea. I can tell you, 
the sheriff in Martin County, where I live and reside, now has 
made a concerted effort to do outreach before there's a 
problem.
    Now, having said that, those collaborations can and do 
work. The problem that I see during my experience as a police 
officer--or saw, as I should say, back in the late 1990s--is 
you can develop all the relationships you want and they can be 
very productive and friendly, but if they become 
omnidirectional--excuse me, one way, not omnidirectional, but 
one way instead of bidirectional, you're not going to get 
anywhere.
    What I mean by that is if people are afraid to go to those 
contacts in the police department that they've made and 
established relationships with because the local drug dealer 
basically has them under constant threat and effectively house 
arrest, you're going to get nothing out of that.
    Again, let me just be crystal clear, it's a terrific idea. 
There is nothing but positive externalities to be generated 
from that. If you can't establish a framework of safety and 
security, it's not going to be a bidirectional relationship and 
it will be useless. Citizens have to be able to come forward to 
the contacts they made knowing they're not going to be attacked 
or criminalized later on or retaliated against. That security 
comes first.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
    Let me just conclude with this. We need to find a better 
way to interact as a society, to work with each other, and have 
the police and the communities that they work with actually 
work together and talk. We need to put aside our differences 
and listen to each other and focus on those things that unite 
us rather than divide us.
    Finally, we owe it to our children and our grandchildren, 
to the future of this Nation, to dedicate ourselves to the 
principle that all men and all women are created equal.
    Again, I want to particularly thank Ms. Underwood Jacobs 
and Mr. Floyd for being here today, and really all the 
Witnesses. Hopefully, we can have both parties working together 
to actually accomplish something here and not just point 
fingers and blame the other side. So, let's hope we can do 
that. You've helped to bring that together today. So, thank you 
very much.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Let me simply note that if Members ask questions of remote 
Witnesses, you should mute your mike while the Witness answers 
the question remotely.
    Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding 
this incredibly important hearing.
    Chair Nadler. Use your mike.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you for holding this hearing.
    I thank the Witnesses for being here to help us forge a new 
path forward, a path to a place where Black men and women 
cannot be murdered in the streets with impunity by those sworn 
to protect them.
    Mr. Floyd, know that we grieve with you and your family on 
the loss of your brother, and my heartfelt condolences go out 
to you and to your entire family.
    Ms. Underwood Jacobs, I offer my sincere condolences to you 
and your family on the loss of your dear brother.
    Mayor Morial, throughout recent times we've seen repeated 
instances where Black people, often unarmed, have been killed 
by a police officer and if the death results in a use-of-force 
investigation, that investigation most often is conducted by 
the law enforcement agency that employs the officer who used 
the deadly force. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Morial. That's traditionally the way it works.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Professor Butler, we've also 
witnessed these use-of-force investigations being overseen by 
the local district attorney who works hand in hand, day after 
day, year after year with the same officer and with the agency 
that employs the officer who used the deadly force in the case 
that's under investigation. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Butler. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Attorney Crump, we've seen time and 
time again that the investigation becomes long and drawn out, 
and at some point months or even years later the local 
prosecutor takes that case before a secret grand jury, and out 
of that grand jury usually comes what's called a no bill, which 
is a refusal to indict the officer who committed the homicide. 
Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Crump. Yes, sir, Congressman Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Professor Butler, because grand 
jury proceedings are secret, the public never learns exactly 
what the prosecutor presented to the grand jury. Isn't that 
correct?
    Mr. Butler. Just like the grand jury proceeding in Staten 
Island with Eric Garner, who was placed in an illegal 
chokehold, we have no idea why that grand jury didn't indict 
that officer for murder.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. It becomes just another justified 
killing of a Black person by the police in America.
    Wouldn't it be fairer if the homicide investigation were 
undertaken by an independent police agency, Attorney Gupta?
    Ms. Gupta. I think it would. It would also give the 
community Members much more faith in their legal system if 
there was an independent investigator in these kinds of cases.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Attorney Ifill, wouldn't it be 
better for the use-of-force investigation to be overseen by an 
independent prosecutor?
    Ms. Ifill. Without question.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Professor Butler, wouldn't it 
inspire public confidence and trust if the law required 
transparency in the investigation and that the results of the 
independent investigation be made available to the citizenry 
within a reasonable period of time, but not 2 years later like 
in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson?
    Mr. Butler. Yes, Congressman. When an officer dishonors her 
badge by committing a crime, she should receive the same 
process as any other criminal.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Attorney Ifill, do you believe that 
the Justice in Policing Act should require the withholding of 
Federal grant funding to police agencies when the States in 
which they operate do not require independent deadly force 
investigations overseen by an independent prosecutor and police 
agency in police use-of-force, deadly use-of-force 
investigations?
    Ms. Ifill. I believe there needs to be an entire overhaul 
of the funding that goes from the Federal Government to the 
Department of Justice to local police departments to ensure 
that they comply with title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
which prohibits the Federal Government from giving money to 
local programs that engage in discrimination.
    One way to ensure that there is not [inaudible] is to 
ensure that there are independent investigations of police 
killings of unarmed Americans and particularly unarmed African 
Americans.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Last, Attorney Gupta, many police officers are protected 
from being questioned in use-of-force investigations because of 
so-called cooling-off periods mandated under State law like in 
Minnesota or under labor contracts negotiated by police unions 
like the Fraternal Order of Police.
    Cooling-off periods prohibit investigators from 
interviewing an accused officer for a period ranging from, say, 
48 hours to sometimes as long as 10 days after an incident. 
They give police officers a chance to learn the facts uncovered 
in the investigation and to create their story lines, get their 
story lines straight. Cooling-off periods for police officers 
can undermine the integrity of investigations into police 
misconduct. Isn't that correct?
    Ms. Gupta. That's correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Is it time for the Federal law to 
mandate restrictions on cooling-off periods, as has been 
mandated by Department of Justice consent decrees with police 
departments in Los Angeles, Seattle, New Orleans, Albuquerque, 
and Portland?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes. The Justice Department specifically put 
those provisions into consent decrees because they were a real 
problem, not only in individual investigations but, frankly, 
undermined the community's faith in the independence and 
fairness of an investigation with setting up two different sets 
of rules for people.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Collins.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Coming together today, I'm reminded of something this 
Committee has done before, and it goes back to Old Testament 
scripture: ``Come now, let us reason together.'' What the 
scripture is telling us is, is that we've been confronted with 
a problem, and the question is for us is, how do we deal with 
it? We've been confronted with the issue. The question is, how 
do we deal with it?
    What's concerning, and as I see this today--and for Mr. 
Floyd and Ms. Jacobs, the loss and the realness in your body 
language, in your eyes, and in your voice--is the pain of a 
Nation right now coming to grips with conflicting issues and 
values in their head, wanting a safe and civil society in which 
all of us get along in a way that should and in a society we 
know doesn't. When you see your loved one murdered, when you 
find out your loved one was murdered, in a time in which we're 
just all struggling.
    It is not surprising to this Committee. It's unfortunate 
for this Committee because in the previous Congress we actually 
had a police working group in which we went to Houston. Chief 
Acevedo was there. We worked and we had a good couple of days 
of meetings. We went to Detroit. We went to Atlanta. We also 
had meetings here. We were beginning these conversations, but 
we didn't continue. When this new Congress set in, we didn't do 
anything.
    Now, we're here again faced with a crisis of the moment, 
and Congress, unfortunately, lives by this seeming decree: Put 
it off until we have to have a hearing like this and we mourn 
the loss of the things most precious to us.
    My question is really, what can we do?
    Ms. Jacobs, you said something earlier. It's talking about 
communities and jobs. It's about putting our communities 
together. The policing issues.
    As someone who is a son of a law enforcement officer--my 
father was a State trooper--I sympathize with it, I watched it.
    One of the most grievous days in my father's ever memory is 
I remember when one of his own did something horribly wrong and 
they took him to prison. The reason is, is he come home, and I 
remember him being down, and he looked at me and he said, ``The 
problem is,'' he said, ``everybody thinks I did it.'' He said, 
``We've got to get rid of that.''
    What have we done? There are things that we can do to help 
our communities. This Committee came together on the First Step 
Act, on criminal justice reform, sentencing reform, working 
with the Senate to actually make a difference in our 
communities, to actually take the President, who signed that, 
who made it a pillar of what he wants to do and signed it, 
that's what a Committee together can do. We've not done that 
here.
    We've actually took--and I worked with the late Elijah 
Cummings, Chair of the Fair Chance Act. We talk about jobs? 
Then the Fair Chance Act was giving those with a criminal 
record a fair shot at applying for jobs because we unchecked 
the box, where they wouldn't have to go through a screening 
beforehand. Let's see if they can actually set on their own and 
try a new chance in life. It's about making our communities 
whole again.
    Yet, there are things in this bill that we can all agree 
on, but there are things in this bill that I wish we would take 
a little more time with, that we would just sit back and say, 
what is this going to happen?
    We've had task forces set up with the Justice Action 
Network, COVID-19 Emergency Justice Task Force, that looked at 
how we deal with our prison populations. A solicitor from my 
hometown, Stephanie Woodard, was a part of that. Others have 
been a part. This is a time for conversations to find good 
answers without unintended consequences.
    Mr. Bongino, I have a question for you, and it's been sort 
of intimated. Are there things about this that concern you, not 
that they're not ideas that need to be discussed, but when you 
look at some of the issues around qualified immunity, some of 
the micromanagement in this bill, what concerns you when you 
see this from a law enforcement perspective?
    Mr. Bongino. Well, as the great Thomas Sowell says often, 
it's not what you do, it's asking, ``And then what?''
    Listen, I get it. There are serious issues with qualified 
immunity. Nobody on the panel is wrong or the Witnesses either 
bringing them up. There's no question about that. We're in full 
agreement.
    The problem is, if you were to repeal qualified immunity, 
have you considered the, ``And then what?''
    Have you considered the fact that police officers' legal 
bills, some who may, in fact, deserve it for doing an awful 
job, but some who may not, will be so oppressive that you won't 
have police officers?
    Have you considered the fact that some of these police 
officers, out of fear of the rather litigious society we live 
in now, unfortunately, will now be afraid in the street to go 
and do their jobs and be proactive in communities that need it 
most? I mean, has anybody asked that question, or are we just 
gaffing that off to create an interesting sound bite?
    The ``Then What?'' matters here, folks. Qualified immunity 
has issues. You can work around the edges, but the margins 
matter here.
    Mr. Collins. I think what we're bringing up here is not an 
issue that we don't need to discuss. When we were discussing 
this through our police working group, we went to these 
communities.
    I appreciate what you said, that it has to go both ways. 
The community and the police have to have these conversations 
both ways.
    I am concerned here, and I appreciate that concern, because 
this is heading to where I know it always heads here. This is 
the hearing. Next week we mark up a bill. Next week it goes to 
the floor. Then we hope the Senate does something. Then we sort 
of go back and forth and hope that it gets right.
    My hope is that, Mr. Chair, we get this right. We did it 
before, let's make it happen again, and take the comments of 
these committees on both sides, Mr. Crump and everybody.
    We can work on this. I've done it before. This Committee 
has a history of working together. Let's do this, and let's get 
with the President and the Senate and make a difference so that 
lives are valued.
    Yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Deutch.
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all our 
Witnesses for being here today. Ms. Underwood Jacobs, I'm sorry 
for your loss. Mr. Floyd, I'm sorry for your loss.
    We're here today because of the long and growing list of 
Black Americans whose lives were taken from us prematurely at 
the hands of police. That's why we're here. George Floyd is the 
latest. Breonna Taylor, Sandra Bland, Philando Castile, Michael 
Brown, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, and far, far too many others.
    We're here today to keep this list from getting even one 
name longer. In this moment, we must dedicate and rededicate 
ourselves to working toward a more just and inclusive country.
    The violence and disregard for human life is what people 
were sickened by when they saw that awful video, Mr. Floyd. The 
fact that so many have marched, representing the true diversity 
of our country, led by young people, all in the face of a 
pandemic to speak out for others shows just how tired our 
Nation, our entire Nation, all of us, are of seeing Black 
person after Black person killed by the police.
    The thousands and thousands of peaceful protesters across 
this Nation deserve our attention. They deserve action. The 
Justice in Policing Act is comprehensive reform that tackles 
the scourge of police brutality that has plagued communities of 
color year after year, brutality that undermines and tarnishes 
the invaluable contributions of the honorable law enforcement 
officers who are just as heartsick as the rest of us at this 
problem.
    What we saw in the video of George Floyd's murder was the 
complete indifference to pain. Mr. Floyd was experiencing pain, 
and it was indifference to that human suffering, indifference 
to a death that was taking place in plain view. The 
indifference was cultivated by a culture without consequences. 
That's why we must provide accountability.
    We need better data collection on police misconduct and use 
of force. We need fair and thorough investigations by DOJ's 
Civil Rights Division that starts by giving them subpoena power 
to investigate allegations of police misconduct. We need to 
know that police officers who violate the civil rights of Black 
Americans can be held accountable for their actions in a court 
of law.
    For Breonna Taylor, who was shot in her own home while the 
actual suspects the police were looking for were in police 
custody, we need to end the practice of no-knock warrants. For 
Sandra Bland, who was found dead in a jail cell 3 days after 
being stopped for a minor traffic violation, and for Philando 
Castile, who was shot five times while seated in his car during 
a traffic stop, we need to require police officers to wear body 
cameras and to require police vehicles to use dashboard 
cameras.
    For Tamir Rice, a child who was shot by police while 
playing in a park with a toy gun, we need to help communities 
reform public safety and change the culture of law enforcement. 
For Eric Garner--and yes, Philonise, for your brother George--
we need to outlaw chokeholds.
    The Justice in Policing Act does all this. It will provide 
accountability. It will provide transparency.
    For our Witnesses, I'd like to focus on what happens when 
troubled officers leave or are fired by one agency, they move 
to another, a system where police officers evade sanctions 
simply by moving jobs. We don't accept this for doctors who 
care for us, we don't accept this for lawyers who defend us, 
and we shouldn't accept this for officers who protect us.
    So, the question I have with respect to Tamir Rice's 
killing by an officer who, as we heard earlier, lost his 
previous job as a police officer in a nearby suburb of 
Cleveland, was deemed emotionally unstable, an unstable recruit 
and unfit for duty, Ms. Gupta, what would a newly imagined 
registry that would require the law enforcement agency to 
report their finding of the officer's fitness for duty look 
like in that scenario?
    Ms. Gupta. Well, if there was a registry of the kind that 
the Justice in Policing Act recommends, you'd have a national 
registry of all Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
agents that would record misconduct complaints, discipline/
termination records, records of certification. It would be 
conditioned if you--law enforcement agencies would need to put 
those inputs in, to get some Federal funding. The registry has 
to be public.
    In the case of Tamir Rice, I will tell you--not just in 
Tamir Rice's case, but in many of the cases I remember Justice 
Department civil rights prosecutors upset that they didn't have 
access to that information not only for prosecutions, but also 
police chiefs. Chief Acevedo just spoke to this earlier, about 
the importance for chiefs to also have that information 
available when making hiring decisions and the like. It 
protects the community.
    Mr. Deutch. Mr. Chair, this is our civil rights moment. I 
pray that our Committee and this body will rise to meet that 
moment.
    Chair Nadler. We all agree.
    The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Buck.
    Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    George Floyd's death was senseless and tragic. I grieve for 
the Floyd family and look forward to justice being served.
    My heart also goes out to the family of Patrick Underwood. 
I thank both of you for being here under these difficult 
circum-stances.
    Yes, there are a few officers who are attracted to the 
uniform for the wrong reasons, who want the authority of 
carrying a badge and a gun, but can't handle the 
responsibility. Some have anger issues, some mental health 
issues. The bad cops are an extremely small percentage of the 
police officers in this country.
    There's another side of the story. For 25 years I 
prosecuted criminals, working closely with great police 
officers and Federal agents. Yes, I prosecuted and convicted 
some officers. I also was at the bedside of officers after they 
had been shot trying to help someone. I've attended funerals 
for officers killed because they had the courage to wear the 
badge and do their job. I've been in the hospital trying to 
comfort one of my employees who learned just moments before of 
the death of her husband, a sheriff's deputy killed in the line 
of duty.
    Don't blame the police. It takes a special kind of courage 
to protect those who can't protect themselves, who care so much 
for their community they are willing to risk their lives to 
save others. When there is gunfire, violence, conflict, a few 
brave men and women wearing blue uniforms run toward the danger 
while others run away.
    Don't blame the police because they didn't create the 
policies that cause crime. We all know the root causes of 
crime. Some don't like to admit their role in the breakdown of 
our society, but the people watching this hearing know.
    We commit a grave injustice to those who have died at the 
hands of police and those who have died at the hands of violent 
criminals if we don't deal with the root causes of crime.
    A comprehensive bill, as was discussed earlier, must 
recognize the societal impact of single parent families, 
substance abuse, mental health issues, failed education system, 
and transnational gangs. Defunding the police or otherwise 
handcuffing the police has its consequences.
    After the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, the police 
were severely restricted by the mayor and the Obama Department 
of Justice. In May 2015 alone, the month after six officers 
were charged for crimes a jury found that they did not commit, 
Baltimore saw 43 homicides, the city's deadliest month in 40 
years.
    A New York Times investigation found that Baltimore ended 
2015 with 342 homicides, a 62 percent increase from 2014. Let 
me repeat that. After Baltimore police were prevented from 
doing their jobs, the city suffered a 62 percent increase in 
homicides.
    There are also indirect consequences to restricting police 
enforcement. In 2017, Baltimore had 692 opioid deaths to go 
along with the 342 homicides. Chicago recently saw its most 
violent day in six decades. Eighteen people were killed on May 
31st. While police were responding to riots downtown, residents 
of Chicago saw firsthand what happens when police are absent 
from the neighborhoods.
    To achieve justice for all, we should support investing in 
police protection of our most vulnerable neighborhoods, and we 
need to change the policies destroying our cities. Let's agree 
to empower good police officers to continue to protect and 
serve. Everyone deserves to be safe and secure in their home, 
on their way to work, walking to school or throwing a ball in 
the park. Don't blame the police for our breakdown in society. 
They are doing their best to clean up the mess caused by 
politicians.
    Mr. Bongino, your thoughts about the causes of crime and 
the role of our police in this country?
    Mr. Bongino. I read an interesting op-ed about 4 or 5 years 
ago. In the opinion piece, they compared and contrasted two 
different areas of the country, one that voted largely for Mitt 
Romney in the election versus Barack Obama, one that voted 
largely for Barack Obama. It was an inner city in one case and 
an Appalachian region in the other case, both considered failed 
by many measures, high crime, poor economy, and poor healthcare 
outcomes.
    What's interesting is it wasn't the voting patterns. It was 
the deeper patterns you're talking about there, broken 
families, drug use, and lax law enforcement.
    If we ignore that--and believe me, I am not in any way 
suggesting accountability for police and reforms are not 
necessary, I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe that--but if 
we're going to ignore the societal problems and broken families 
and all the degradation of the culture and all that and just 
scapegoat the police, you will get nothing out of this hearing. 
You won't see one Act of real change. You may get some sound 
bites, you may get some votes, but you're not going to see a 
darn thing change.
    Mr. Buck. What I hear you saying is it will be 
counterproductive.
    Mr. Bongino. It will absolutely be counterproductive. You 
will see nothing.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Ms. Bass.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    There are a couple things I wanted to say before I start my 
questions. It was said in the opening statement that the mayor 
of Los Angeles defunded the police department. I just wanted to 
make note that he absolutely did not defund the police 
department. He did reduce the budget, and he shifted the funds 
to deal with some of the real issues that police departments, 
police officers always complain about, because how do they 
address some of society's problems, like homelessness and 
mental illness? So, he shifted the funding for that reason.
    I also wanted to follow up with Mr. Morial, who was 
describing a history of lynching. I just wanted to point out 
that one of the reasons--although you didn't say this, I would 
believe that one of the reasons you were talking about lynching 
is because in many of those cases law enforcement officers were 
involved in the direct lynching, either getting the person, 
killing the person, et cetera. That was the relationship there.
    I wanted to also talk about qualified immunity and wanted 
to ask Mr. Crump if he would respond to that, because I believe 
one of my colleagues was mentioning, what is the issue since it 
is qualified, it's not absolute? So, why do we need to do 
anything? Why would we need to change that?
    Mr. Crump. Too often what we have seen in courtrooms, 
especially when police have killed African Americans, 
especially Black men, that the courts have interpreted this 
qualified immunity to almost give complete impunity to the 
police officers.
    That's why nobody is ever held accountable when you think 
about that long list of Black Lives Matters names that we often 
recite to make sure that people know their life mattered. If 
there is no accountability, Congresswoman Bass, it will keep 
happening. We pray that George Floyd is the last one. If this 
great body doesn't act, it's going to happen again, and I 
predict it's going to happen in the next 30 days.
    Ms. Bass. Wow.
    What about some of the other professions that have this? Is 
it the same thing? People have raised a concern about child 
welfare workers or other people that have qualified immunity.
    Mr. Crump. It only seems to be the police that have this 
great authority, this power that we've given them, and it goes 
unchecked. Every other profession you are kept in check by the 
laws that govern this, but the courts have, I believe 
unconstitutionally in many ways, given police this absolute 
blanket immunity, especially when it comes to Black and brown 
people being killed by police.
    I mean, it's almost you can count on one hand the people 
who actually go to jail for killing Black people. Out of those 
thousands of people since Marc Morial said since Trayvon Martin 
was killed, I think it was over--almost 1,300, you can 
literally count specifically the number of times police have 
actually gone to jail. It is horrific, Madam Congresswoman.
    Ms. Bass. Mr. Morial, having served as a mayor, I have 
often heard you say that you're one of the few folks around 
that have actually been involved in addressing this issue with 
the police department that you managed. Could you point out 
some of the specific things?
    Mr. Morial. So, we orchestrated a highly successful reform 
of a very broken police department, a city that had 500 murders 
a year, a city that led the Nation in the number of civil 
rights complaints, a city that has two police officers on death 
row.
    We had to completely rebuild the department. I said at the 
time that we were going to tear it down brick by brick and we 
were going to rebuild it brick by brick.
    At the end, we had a nationally accredited department. We 
took the murder rate down by 60 percent. We brought the civil 
rights complaints down to an infinitesimal number. We 
instituted community-oriented policing.
    So, the idea is obnoxious to me that somehow that if you 
hold police accountable you're trying their hands from fighting 
crime.
    Ms. Bass. Maybe Ms. Gupta could conclude on that to 
continue that response.
    Do we tie police hands by instituting these reforms?
    Ms. Gupta. I actually appreciate this question very much, 
because just a few weeks ago Richard Rosenfeld and Joel Wallman 
did a long study that they released in May of 2020, found no 
evidence for a Ferguson effect linking police killings of Black 
citizens to the homicide spike in places like Baltimore and 
other places via depolicing.
    There's been a lot of statements about that that were very 
concerning in the aftermath of Freddie Gray's death in 
Baltimore, and there had been no data that had been actually 
collected and put out. The study I think is a really important 
offering that belies, actually, that notion. This notion that 
somehow when you protest racial injustice that that increases 
homicide rates in cities, this evidence actually produced says 
that's not true.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    Ms. Roby.
    Ms. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    There are no adequate words I can say to take away the pain 
of those suffering across our country. Now is the time for 
understanding, and I am committed to listening and learning.
    First, Mr. Floyd and the entire Floyd family and loved 
ones, I am deeply sorry for the loss of your brother, family 
member, and friend. No actions or words I can say here today 
will ever make you whole again, but please know how grateful I 
am for your presence here today, and I offer you my deepest 
condolences.
    Ms. Underwood Jacobs, your brother Pat was proudly 
protecting the community he loved, and I am deeply sorry for 
your loss as well.
    I hope you both will accept my heartfelt grief for you and 
your entire family.
    To all the families, like the Floyds and the Underwoods, 
who have had to suffer the tragedy and sorrow of losing a loved 
one due to needless violence, I also want to add my deep 
condolences.
    Today is a day to set our politics aside and focus on sound 
policies for our country.
    To all the Witnesses, I have reviewed your written 
testimony, I have heard your verbal testimony, and I've 
listened to you answer questions from my colleagues. I want you 
to know that I am listening, I am learning, and I hear you. I 
stand ready. I am hopeful that we can find bipartisan solutions 
and policies.
    Mr. Floyd and Ms. Underwood Jacobs, I would like to give 
each of you the remainder of my time to address the Committee.
    Mr. Floyd. Just sitting here, coming to try to tell you 
about how I want justice for my brother, I just think about 
that video over and over again. It felt like 8 hours and 46 
minutes. It hurt seeing my brother plead for his life, watching 
that officer just put his knee on his neck.
    Every day just looking at it, being like anywhere, that's 
all people talk about. The rest of my life, that's all I'll 
ever see, somebody looking at the video.
    The kids had to watch the video. His kids had to watch the 
video. It just hurt. There's a lot of people with a lot of 
pain.
    My family, they just cry, cry every day and just ask, why, 
why? He pleaded for his life. He said he couldn't breathe. 
Nobody cared, nobody. People pleaded for him. They still didn't 
care.
    Justice has to be served. Those officers, they have to be 
convicted. Anybody with a heart, they know that's wrong. You 
don't do that to a human being. You don't even do that to an 
animal.
    His life mattered. All our lives matter. Black lives 
matter.
    I wish I can get him back. Those officers, they get to 
live.
    Ms. Roby. Mr. Floyd, we grieve with you, and we appreciate 
very much your courage to be here with us today.
    My time has expired, but may Ms. Underwood Jacobs address 
the Committee as well?
    Chair Nadler. By all means.
    Ms. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Floyd.
    Ms. Underwood Jacobs. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and 
Congresswoman Roby.
    I have to say that I'm heartbroken. I didn't get a chance 
to say good-bye to my brother either before he was killed.
    I am also heartbroken for all the other people that are in 
this country living every single day and feel unsafe just to 
drive to the store. I also have had the talk with my son.
    We sit here today at somewhat opposite ends of the spectrum 
to a certain degree, but there is so much commonality among 
both of us. The heartbreak and the grief is inexplainable, 
because it's very, very hard to articulate when your entire 
world has been turned upside-down.
    I do want to know, though, when I think about all this, is 
that my brother wore a uniform and he wore that uniform 
proudly. I'm wondering, where is the outrage for a fallen 
officer that also happens to be African American?
    So, as I'm sitting here and I'm listening to all of you and 
us, I truly hope that you take your positions, your offices so 
seriously that you want to go back and really work together and 
collaborate, because if you can't get it right there's no hope 
for the rest of us.
    So, when you go back and you convene and you talk through 
everything that's going on, I hope that we're not people on 
paper, but the fact that you could be able to see our faces and 
feel our pain and feel it enough that you want to make change 
for all the citizens of the United States of America.
    Ms. Roby. Again, we grieve with you both and we thank you 
very much for your courage to be with us here today. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Richmond.
    Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Very rarely I'm at a loss of words or know where to start. 
I want to start with you, Ms. Angela Underwood Jacobs, and just 
say that you have my condolences, my sympathy, and my prayers. 
Unfortunately, this was the hearing you were invited to. You 
were not invited to the hearings where in Homeland Security we 
talk about the threat to our law enforcement officers that put 
on blue and Black every day, the fact that we tried to get more 
vests for police officers and the other side fought it, the 
fact that we wanted to fight sovereign citizens that's killed 
more police officers in this country than anybody else and the 
other side fought it.
    They invited you to this hearing. I just want you to know 
that we have fought for increased survivor benefits for the 
families of officers and we respect those who serve our 
communities.
    Then, Mr. Floyd, Philonise, let me just tell you that when 
I met with you in Houston and your family, the remarkable thing 
is you asked for two things, neither of which was for you, 
justice for George and a just society, and that's why we're 
here today.
    The unfortunate part is in this process we speak, and we 
leave. There's one thing that I want to address. Mr. Buck came 
and said that it was politicians that has messed up the family 
unit in America. That could somewhat be true. For him, how do 
you ignore the White man's knee on the neck of Black people for 
401 years and Act like that has nothing to do with where we 
are?
    Part of the reason why I am so encouraged today is more 
people are recognizing that now, and the systematic racism and 
oppression that has existed, that we're now coming together to 
fight and establish a solution.
    It was Dr. King in his ``Letter from a Birmingham Jail,'' 
that he actually responded to his critics for the first time, 
because he said that he would assume they were people of good 
will with sincere concerns. Over my better judgment, I will 
assume the other side is people of good will and sincere 
concern in some of these arguments why we can't or shouldn't 
pass this bill.
    The other part I want you to understand is the outrage that 
I have, because it was 1991 when the movie ``Boyz n the Hood'' 
came out. The last line in the movie said, ``Either they don't 
know, don't show, or don't care about what's going on in the 
hood.''
    Well, if you didn't know, now you know, because the 
protesters, the peaceful protesters out there are showing you 
what's happening. Video footage is showing us what's happening.
    So, then you go to the last line and the real question is, 
do we care? I believe that this piece of legislation is a good 
piece of legislation that moves the ball forward. It is very 
easy to sit on the other side and let perfection be the enemy 
of the good or just sit back with inertia and we never move the 
ball forward. We have an obligation to the next generation of 
kids, to men and women walking the streets now, to make sure we 
move the ball forward.
    Every once in a while--we've tried it the other way all 
this time. We're just asking you to try it our way this time. 
Let's pass some legislation. Let's hold the bad police officers 
accountable.
    We always say bad apples. Well, the saying is, enough bad 
apples spoil a bunch. So, let's make sure that we're talking 
about it.
    Mr. Morial, in 30 seconds, and I know I used up all the 
time, I was the beneficiary of your reforms. What you did was 
you moved some resources from a constitutional police 
department that you created to after school funding and things 
that the community can do better than police. Twenty seconds, 
can you explain that?
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Morial. The disinvestment in those types of programs 
over the last 20 years, and some of it's happened in this 
Congress, the elimination of a summer youth employment program, 
the elimination of supports for children. Baltimore City, no 
extracurricular activities in any of the schools.
    So, we can fix policing with this, and we need to do some 
other things to address those other systemic issues.
    You're right, I moved $1 million the first 30 days I was in 
office from police overtime to create a summer jobs program, 
because there was no money. The summer jobs program and the 
camps for kids and the outdoor camps for inner city kids that 
didn't cost a dime, that gave kids, a person like you, a chance 
to work at LSU Dental School, those made great differences.
    Part of this conversation about, quote, ``don't want to 
open up Pandora's box,'' unquote, defunding police is really 
not about defunding police. It's about funding other things 
that have been ignored and forgotten, investing in young people 
and youth.
    You're a middle-class parent in America today, your kid 
wants to go to dance class, you pay. Karate, pay. Little League 
baseball, pay. Inner city kid, no opportunity if it's not 
provided by the public dollars.
    You go back to 1950s and 1960s in America when immigrants 
made up the vast majority, European immigrants made up the vast 
majority of major American cities, and you had free recreation 
programs and free summer camps. On our watch, as these cities 
have changed, somehow, some way, a lot of that has gone away. 
So, we're there trying to patch together dollars and patch 
together work.
    So, it's important to understand this bill is about 
reforming policing, which is a pillar. There's a separate 
discussion and an additional discussion that needs to be had 
about how we do all the other things. I want to work with you 
on that. Don't confuse the two. I mean, that's the thing. 
People want to confuse the two.
    Just I'll say, respectfully, a bad family situation didn't 
kill George Floyd. Sir, that's an outrage. It's an absolute 
outrage to think that a bad family--I am tired of trying to 
change the issue, when we have police brutality and police 
misconduct, to this rhetoric about bad family situations. It's 
an insult and it needs to stop. It needs to stop. I sit, I take 
it, I listen, but not at this moment, not at this time.
    Let's fix policing in America. Let's focus on that. There's 
ample time to do other things. As I said earlier, it's a moral 
moment. It's time for that. We're called to act. Yes, figure 
out a way to do it in a bipartisan way.
    Go back and look. On the other side of this Capitol there 
are two office buildings named for United States Senators, both 
of whom have a legacy of what we're talking about today. One is 
Richard B. Russell, a man who led the filibuster against the 
anti-lynching law for decades. The other, Everett McKinley 
Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois who provided the courage to 
help President Johnson pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
That's the moment we're in.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I'm struck today by a lot of the testimony and that we're 
hearing some of the same recurring themes. It is a moral 
moment, Mr. Morial, my friend from Louisiana, as you said.
    One of the recurring themes that we've heard many times 
this morning from the Members and Witnesses is about the need 
to rebuild relationships.
    One of the Founders, Henry David Thoreau said ``There are a 
thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking 
at the root.'' One of those root problems in this moral moment 
we face is that we don't know each other anymore. That's kind 
of how society and culture have evolved.
    We all agree on the objective, obviously, by the comments 
this morning, of rebuilding relationships, but I think we need 
to drill down a little bit--public policy is one thing, but 
this is a hard issue, as we all agree to determine what the 
best, most effective methods are to achieve that objective that 
we all agree on.
    So, I just wanted to ask a couple of our Witnesses, 
beginning with Mr. Crump, I appreciate what you said this 
morning. We had a little sidebar over here, and I like the 
heart that you bring to this issue. I wanted to ask your 
opinion on that, because you mentioned that in your remarks 
about the need to build relationships.
    So, from your experiences and everything you've been doing, 
what do you think are some ways we can do that between members 
of our communities and law enforcement officials?
    Mr. Crump. Certainly. Thank you, Representative Johnson.
    I do think we have to work together. At the crux of the 
matter, it's a lack of trust, I believe, between communities of 
color and law enforcement, because we have to have 
transparency, which we haven't had in the police killings of 
Black people. As one of the Witnesses said, you go to a secret 
grand jury proceeding, like Eric Garner or any other cases, 
Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and they come back after the secret 
grand jury and say, no indictment, we didn't find evidence, 
even though we all saw it with our eyes.
    So, you have to have transparency. Then you have to have 
accountability. That's how you get to trust.
    I think you said something that I agree with. It's about 
transparency, it's about training, and then termination. We've 
got to terminate police. We don't do it. I mean, we just don't 
do it. We don't send them to jail. We don't even fire them when 
they kill Black people.
    So, as Philonise said, we've got to care. As Representative 
Richmond said, do we care? Because our actions don't construe 
that. So, first, we've got to just get to the core. It's 
transparency, accountability, and then maybe we can get to 
trust.
    Because we do see it from the other side, that Black 
people, the prison industrial complex, school-to-prison 
pipeline, you see it all the time, you're going to jail. Then 
when we're the victim, you don't see convictions, like Eric 
Garner or any of these other cases.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I appreciate those comments. I 
think that it goes even more fundamental than that in that it's 
the relationships even in the communities. Before you can get 
to building trust with law enforcement, it's with our neighbors 
too, right?
    I was on the phone last night with the local director of 
our YMCA, and he had this idea to host--to use the YMCA 
facilities in my community as a neutral forum where he would 
have these events, an activities night, Saturday night or maybe 
Sunday nights. He'd invite one Black church and one White 
church, right? Just put everybody together in the same facility 
and let them get to know each other and have fun together. Just 
simple things like that, we ought to foster and try to 
encourage.
    It doesn't have anything to do with the law, really, or 
public policy. It's about being good Americans and good 
neighbors. I hope we can get back to that, and maybe this is a 
flash point to do it.
    If Mr. Davis is still with us--I know he was with us 
remotely--I'm really interested in his experience at DOJ and 
the community-oriented policing services. I know that's a big 
function of this as well. I wonder if he could speak to that 
issue, if he's still with us on the idea of building those 
relationships and community policing as an important function 
of that.
    Mr. Davis. Yes, Congressman, I am still here, and thank you 
very much for the question. I would say, with the COPS Office, 
it has a great opportunity to actually do that, to facilitate 
community policing, and that's really its charge. It's its 
charge to be able to identify the best practices of community 
policing, how to engage through our grant program, to 
incentivize best practices through our grant programs, our 
hiring process. You are hiring in the spirit of service. So, I 
think it does help on a lot.
    If I can say one thing, Congressman, a key to that is there 
are over 16,000 individual police agencies in the country. Most 
of them are 25 officers or fewer. So, without the help of the 
COPS Office or the Federal Government, it is hard to infuse 
those types of training and information and best practices. So, 
the COPS Office is the key [inaudible] whether there's two 
officers or 4,000, if they have the opportunity for best 
practices.
    That was our goal, was to advance the policing, and it 
still probably should be the goal today. I do say we have 
stepped away from that, from a lot of the programs that we were 
offering at one time.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. I'm out of time. I 
yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Jeffries.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The chokehold and other police tactics, such as a knee to 
the neck, are inherently dangerous and present an unreasonable 
risk of serious bodily injury or death. That is why the Justice 
in Policing Act will make such strangulation tactics unlawful 
pursuant to our Nation's civil rights laws.
    President Davis, the National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives supports criminalizing chokeholds and 
other strangulation tactics as a matter of law. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Davis. This is for Ron Davis? Yes, sir, it is.
    Mr. Jeffries. Ms. Gupta, does the civil rights community 
support criminalizing chokeholds and other strangulation 
tactics as a matter of Federal law?
    Ms. Gupta. We do. In fact, there are departments around the 
country that have already banned them. So, this is about making 
that the national standard.
    Mr. Jeffries. Professor Butler, is it fair to say that the 
neck should be off limits during police encounters?
    Mr. Butler. Absolutely. When the police use--
    Chair Nadler. Use your mike, Mr. Butler, please.
    Mr. Butler. Thank you, sir.
    When the police use pain compliance techniques like neck 
restraints, it prevents blood and oxygen from going to the 
lungs and brain. There's a great risk of death.
    Mr. Jeffries. Black lives matter, yet month after month, 
year after year, decade after decade, the list of tragedy 
continues to grow. Amadou Diallo dead, Sean Bell dead, Eric 
Garner dead, Tamir Rice dead, Walter Scott dead, Oscar Grant 
dead, Yvette Smith dead, Stephon Clark dead, Breonna Taylor 
dead, and George Floyd dead.
    Mr. Bongino, the police are at times able to show restraint 
under very difficult circumstances. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bongino. Of course.
    Mr. Jeffries. Let's review a few examples.
    In 2012, James Holmes entered a movie theater in Aurora, 
Colorado, and opened fire on an audience, killing 12 people and 
injuring 70. Mr. Holmes was heavily armed with an AR-15, 12-
gauge shotgun, and .40 caliber handgun, yet he was taken into 
police custody outside of that very same movie theater without 
incident.
    Mr. Bongino, James Holmes is white. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bongino. I'm not sure of his background. I don't know 
James Holmes personally.
    Mr. Jeffries. He's white.
    In 2014, Dylann Roof massacred nine Black parishioners at 
Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. Mr. Roof was heavily 
armed with a high-powered Glock, .45 caliber pistol, and 88 
rounds. The police somehow arrested Dylann Roof without 
incident and even treated him to Burger King.
    Mr. Bongino, Dylann Roof is white. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bongino. Yeah, I don't know where you're going with 
this. So, if he's white, that doesn't make him any better. It 
was an awful thing he did, whether he was White or black.
    Mr. Jeffries. Correct.
    Mr. Bongino. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
    Mr. Jeffries. Dylann Roof was white.
    Mr. Bongino. He's awful.
    Mr. Jeffries. Last year, in El Paso, Texas, Patrick Crusius 
killed 23 people and injured dozens during a shooting rampage. 
He used an AK-47 and was heavily armed. Yet, somehow he was 
arrested without incident.
    Mr. Bongino, Patrick Crusius was white. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bongino. Sir, I have no idea of his--I don't know his 
parentage.
    Mr. Jeffries. He was white.
    Mr. Bongino. Again, I don't know why you're making a racial 
thing out of it.
    Mr. Jeffries. Reclaiming my time. Because Black lives 
matter, sir.
    Mr. Bongino. Yeah. All lives matter, sir. Every single life 
matters, white, black, or Asian.
    Mr. Jeffries. Professor Butler, you have heavily armed mass 
murderers in places like Aurora, Charleston, and El Paso 
somehow apprehended by police without incident. That's the 
point, sir.
    Mr. Bongino. I arrested those people, sir. You didn't.
    Mr. Jeffries. Innocent unarmed African Americans are 
repeatedly killed in police encounter after police encounter. 
Is it fair to say that the difference, which seems explicable, 
in police behavior somehow relates, at least in part, to race?
    Mr. Butler. In law and in police practices, Black lives do 
not have the same value that White lives have.
    Mr. Jeffries. All we simply want is for every single 
community, regardless of race, to be able to breathe the free 
air of liberty and justice for all. That's what the Justice in 
Policing Act is all about.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. McClintock.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    We're here because we've recently suffered multiple 
failures of law enforcement, beginning with the killing of 
George Floyd. He died because a rogue cop with multiple 
complaints for misconduct was allowed to remain on a police 
force, as did one of his accomplices.
    This has become an intolerable pattern in big city police 
forces, and we need to ask how politically powerful police 
unions and the politicians they maintain in office protect the 
bullies in the system that inevitably lead to atrocities like 
this.
    The other failure was the decision to withhold police 
protection from their citizens by mayors and their appointed 
police chiefs. That failure killed Pat Underwood, killed David 
Dorn, and so many other innocent victims in the ensuing riots.
    Withdrawing police protection from our streets, abandoning 
police stations to rioters, turning a blind eye to looting, 
arson, and mayhem, all have an incendiary effect on 
insurrections.
    Without law enforcement there is no law, and without law 
there is no civilization. An accounting of the deaths and 
destruction caused by these acts of dereliction have yet to be 
tallied, but it's going to be staggering.
    Now, we meet today to chart a course forward. I think we 
can look to no better guide than Sir Robert Peel, the father of 
modern policing, who set forth principles of law enforcement 
for a free society nearly two centuries ago. When you read 
them, you realize how far we have drifted from these moorings.
    Central to our discussion is his seventh principle, quote: 
``To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that 
gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the 
public and that the public are the police, the police being 
only Members of the public who are paid to give full-time 
attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in 
the interests of community welfare and existence,'' end of 
quote.
    So, how do we get back to these principles? I think there 
are many proposals that have been raised in the House that 
merit support, and first is the doctrine of qualified immunity. 
As it's currently applied, it has no place in a Nation ruled by 
laws.
    For every right, there must be a remedy, and qualified 
immunity prevents a remedy for those whose rights have been 
violated by officials holding a public trust. This reform 
should apply as much to a rogue cop who targets people because 
of their race as it does to IRS or Justice Department officials 
who target people on the basis of their politics.
    Reforming qualified immunity simply holds public officials 
to the same standards as any other citizen exercising the same 
powers.
    Second, police records must be open to the public. It is a 
well-established principle that public servants work for the 
public and the public has a right to know what they're doing 
with the authority the public has loaned them. Police 
departments should be able to dismiss bad officers without 
interference from the unions.
    By preventing the public from access to these records and 
preventing departments from acting on them, we destroy the very 
foundation of successful policing in a free society--public 
trust and accountability.
    Third, turning police departments into paramilitary 
organizations is antithetical to the sixth principle laid down 
by Peel, quote, ``To use only the minimum degree of physical 
force which is necessary on any particular occasion for 
achieving a police objective. Weapons that are unique to a 
battlefield need to be limited to a battlefield.''
    Fourth, no-knock warrants have been proven to be lethal to 
citizens and to police officials, for obvious reasons. The 
invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying 
powers the government possesses. Every person in a free society 
has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes. 
That means that the authority of the police must be announced 
before that intrusion takes place. To do otherwise places every 
one of us in mortal peril.
    I think these four reforms are legitimate powers for the 
Federal Government to uphold the constitutional rights of its 
citizens, but it's not within our legitimate power to dictate 
training and procedures for every community in the country. As 
Peel counsels us, effective law enforcement is a community 
endeavor, and every community has different needs and different 
circumstances which require different standards. One size fits 
all bromides are, at best, ineffective and, at worst, 
dangerous.
    Then finally, lest we forget, when faithful, dedicated, 
honest police officers--and that is the vast, vast majority of 
those who serve us--when they are attacked, degraded and 
disrespected, demoralized, hamstrung, and withdrawn, those most 
at risk are the poor and the defenseless who live and work in 
our inner cities.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Escobar.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Chair Bass. 
I'm so grateful for this piece of legislation and for your 
leadership.
    I want to thank all the panelists who are here with us 
today.
    Ms. Underwood Jacobs, I want you to know that we hear, and 
we feel and we see your pain, and we are praying for justice 
for you and your entire family as well. Our sincerest 
condolences. Thank you for being here.
    Mr. Floyd, thank you for your incredible courage. I cannot 
imagine the strength that it took to be here with us today, but 
you did it. I want you to know that for those of us who are 
mothers, it tore us up to hear your brother call out for your 
mother. We heard him and we hear you. We are going to continue 
to fight for justice for as long as we can.
    People are marching in the streets all over this country 
and all over the world, marching for justice, marching to force 
us to rise to this moment. It is our obligation and our duty to 
rise to this moment.
    I have heard from many of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle their desire to work in a bipartisan nature on 
this bill and to achieve an outcome worthy of the American 
people who have entrusted us in this moment.
    So, my request today of my colleagues, for the remainder of 
this hearing, for our markup next week, and for the day that it 
comes to the floor, let us focus on what is in the bill, not 
what is not in the bill.
    I've heard a lot of conversations from this dais about 
issues that are being debated outside of this room. Those 
debates are important, those debates are healthy, those debates 
are part of American democracy, but they're not in the bill.
    If we truly are going to come to a bipartisan agreement and 
provide for this country the justice that it is seeking, let's 
focus on what is in the bill.
    Professor Butler, we have heard much about the 
disproportionate impact that police brutality has had on the 
African American community, and we have also heard much about 
the fact that, well, let's focus on family, well, let's focus 
on God. No one disputes that, as a country and as a government, 
we should be making investments in education, investments in 
healthcare, and investments in community.
    In terms of fully coming to grips with what is happening in 
terms of race and law enforcement in this country, we know that 
unarmed Black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed 
White Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.
    To what do you attribute that fact? Your microphone, 
please, sir.
    Mr. Butler. A legacy, Congresswoman, of White supremacy, a 
legacy of slavery and Jim Crow segregation, and then an 
evolution from the old Jim Crow to the new Jim Crow where the 
stereotypes and the biases against people of color don't go 
away, but they just take different forms.
    Ms. Escobar. That's absolutely correct.
    Mr. Floyd, I want to ask you, as a Black man in America, do 
you live in fear that you will one day be a target as well?
    Mr. Floyd. Yes, ma'am. Every day I walk around, I ask 
myself am I next, am I next all the time, because I don't want 
to do anything wrong to make anybody think that I'm doing 
wrong. So, I just try to live life and just have faith and hope 
everything comes out the right way. Basically, that's it, just 
a Black man just trying to go to work every day and go back 
home safely. That's it. Thank you.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Floyd.
    If we are truly to come to an agreement on this 
legislation, if we are truly to rise to this moment, we have to 
acknowledge the truth that is looking at us in the face every 
single day in America. We have to rise to this occasion. We 
have to do justice.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Ms. Lesko.
    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Before I start, I'd like to just point out something. When 
we started, Mr. Floyd spoke first, and it was very passionate. 
I was very moved. Then for some reason you didn't have Ms. 
Underwood Jacobs speak about the loss of her brother. It really 
surprised me, quite frankly, and I thought it was very 
disrespectful. I don't know if that's what you meant, but I 
wanted to say that.
    I want to thank all of you for coming here, and I am very 
sorry for your loss, Mr. Floyd, and for your loss, Ms. 
Underwood Jacobs.
    I have two Black grandsons. So, I haven't experienced the 
discrimination that some of you have experienced that you have 
told us about, but I sure don't want them to be discriminated 
against. So, this is very important to me.
    There's another thing going on here that I just want to 
read some tweets. This is very disturbing to me.
    First, in early June, Brian Fallon, the Executive Director 
of Demand Justice and the former press secretary to Hillary 
Clinton's Presidential campaign and spokesman for Attorney 
General Eric Holder, tweeted, ``Defund the police.''
    On June 5th, Representative Ilhan Omar, who represents 
Minneapolis in Congress, tweeted, ``The Minneapolis Police 
Department has proven themselves beyond reform. It's time to 
disband them and reimagine public safety in Minneapolis.''
    Minneapolis City Council Member Jeremiah Ellison, son of 
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, tweeted, ``We are 
going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department.''
    Lisa Bender, the President of the Minneapolis City Council, 
tweeted, ``We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police 
Department.''
    I read that Patrisse Cullors, a cofounder of the Black 
Lives Matter movement, wants to see police forces abolished 
entirely eventually.
    Steve Fletcher, Minnesota City Council member, also stated 
that he and the city council President and the chair of the 
public safety are calling to disband our police department.
    Mr. Bongino, I am a survivor of domestic violence from a 
previous marriage, and I remember when my neighbors called the 
police. I don't know why, but I disputed. When the police came 
to the door, I said, ``oh, I'm fine, nothing happened, 
everything's good here.''
    If we disband, dismantle, defund, or reduce funding in the 
police, what's going to happen to the woman that calls out 
who's a victim of domestic violence? What's going to happen to 
response time? What's going to happen in that situation, do you 
think?
    Mr. Bongino. Well, I became a police officer--I wanted to 
be a doctor--precisely because in a situation, without 
rendering any further embarrassment to people in my family, a 
police officer showed up and dissuaded the member of my family 
from doing something he shouldn't have been doing. This person 
wasn't scared of anything. He was only scared of the police. I 
don't mean that in a negative way. I meant he didn't want to go 
to jail.
    It's the only thing--I was about nine or ten--it's the only 
thing that brought peace to me that night. I knew I wanted to 
be a cop the moment after that.
    This defund the police abomination will lead to a 
catastrophe like you've never seen. I can't emphasize that in 
strong enough terms.
    I worked in a largely minority precinct, East New York 
Brooklyn, the 75 Precinct. It's a tough place to work. I was 
young. I was in my twenties. The only time I was ever 
physically attacked by someone was in a domestic violence 
situation.
    I have nothing but the utmost respect for social workers, 
medics, EMTs, and firemen. I mean that. Running into a burning 
building is tough. Saving someone's life and catching a pulse 
in the last minutes, that's tough.
    When I walked into that house, make no mistake, that man--
and forgive me for not saying my sincere, my heartfelt empathy 
with you for having gone through that, having lived through it 
myself, I should have opened with that. I mean that.
    That man in that house, I'll never forget it, he wasn't 
going to be stopped. There was no negotiating. This isn't a 
movie, folks, this is real. He wasn't going to be stopped from 
attacking his wife.
    There was a five- or six-year-old, I don't know the age, 
cowering in the corner. I've told this story recently, because 
it's so tattooed on my brain, I'll never forget it. You know 
what that's like, cowering in the corner, the daddy, stop.
    The guy wasn't going to be stopped. He didn't care that we 
had guns. You think he's going to care if it's a social worker?
    Again, I'm not sure where this ridiculous absurdity of 
defunding the police came from, but I didn't come here with 
some partisan agenda. Frankly, I'm deeply offended that some 
have made it so, including mischaracterizing my comments by Mr. 
Morial, which was offensive to me, too. You can pound the table 
all you want, but that's not what I said.
    Black families matter to me too, that was my point, not 
that the tragic death of Mr. Floyd had anything to do with 
that. What about Black families that are the subject of 
domestic violence? The guy I stopped hit me with an ironing 
board, you know that? Luckily, my partner was able to save me 
and that woman and that crying five-year old child.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Lesko. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Ms. Jayapal.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Floyd, please accept my deepest condolences for your 
brother's death. It is one too many deaths that result from 
centuries-old pervasive violence and anti-blackness at the 
hands of the police.
    I promise you that we intend to honor George Floyd with the 
most sweeping changes to policing that this House has seen in 
recent memory, banning chokeholds, no-knock warrants, making 
lynching a Federal crime, and investing in community-based 
models that provide community safety for all. That is all we 
can do. We cannot bring him back, but we can honor him with 
real change.
    I want to bring into this room the name of Charleena Lyles, 
a pregnant Black woman and mother of five in Seattle, and, with 
her, the many Black women across the country who have lost 
their lives or their children.
    Three years ago, the Seattle Police Department responded to 
a call from Ms. Lyles, who had been flagged as someone with 
mental health issues. The officers had received crisis 
intervention training, and they did know about her mental 
health issues. Yet, before attempting nonlethal methods of de-
escalation, they fired seven rounds, killing her in front of 
her children. Her 2-year-old son climbed onto her body and laid 
in her blood.
    This brutal story is one of far too many. It's not enough 
just to say Black lives matter; we have to do the work to 
cement this essential principle into policy and practice. It's 
why we must pass, as a critical first step, the Justice in 
Policing Act.
    Professor Butler, I want to start with you. Is any amount 
of crisis training to teach officers how to interact with 
individuals with mental health issues sufficient in and of 
itself to overcome what we're calling the warrior mentality 
that exists within law enforcement?
    Mr. Butler. Congresswoman, if the culture of police 
departments isn't shifted away from that warrior mentality, 
then no other reform would matter.
    Guardianship is the model that President Obama's commission 
recommended. If you think about it, if you're applying for a 
job as a warrior, you're going to have one resume and one group 
of skill sets. If you're applying for a job to be a guardian, 
to be a caretaker for your community, you have a different 
resume and a different set of skills.
    Congresswoman Lesko, thank you so much for sharing your 
story. I heard that story as a failure of policing. What I 
imagined is, what if responders had shown up who understand 
what your experience is like as a survivor? It's too often the 
case that survivors don't go to the police or shun the police 
because the police aren't going to give them the service that 
they need. Imagine, if a guardian had shown up instead, what a 
difference that might have made.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Professor Butler.
    Mr. Gupta, as you know, the Seattle Police Department is in 
its eighth year under a Federal consent decree that was based 
upon DOJ's finding that excessive force was most often used 
against people of color and those who were either mentally or 
chemically impaired. As you know, initially, there were some 
wonderful, positive changes that occurred.
    However, 8 years later, we have run into some roadblocks, 
where reforms recommended by the community police commission 
that were set up were ignored by city leaders and not 
incorporated into police unit contracts. The recent protests on 
the streets here in Seattle have been met by a police force 
that uses use of force against peaceful protesters.
    You had talked about a phrase, ``Culture eats policy for 
lunch.'' Can you explain what that phrase means to you and what 
tools within this bill are most important and what else is 
needed to truly bring about justice that meets the cries of the 
protesters on the streets?
    Ms. Gupta. Yeah. I think in the success of any kind of 
long-term reform effort or a consent decree, Congresswoman, is 
where there's leadership and there's an effort that is 
sustained over time to change the culture of policing. It is 
what Professor Butler was alluding to just now. It doesn't 
happen overnight, but it requires sustained commitment.
    I look at the Justice in Policing Act and I look at the 
provisions in there that are seeking to ensure accountability. 
Because when people feel like their police department can Act 
with impunity and no accountability, when police officers feel 
like there is no accountability or consequences on the other 
side, the culture of a police department becomes very hard to 
change.
    Mo matter how many policies you change, how much you 
overhaul in terms of the policing manual and the like, the 
culture of peace is actually the thing that takes the longest 
amount of time to shift. It requires constant and persistent 
leadership at the top, and it requires a commitment to changing 
and reflecting a system of policing that is much more guardian-
oriented than warrior.
    I will also say that, right now, there is a hunger in the 
streets and in communities around the country to recognize that 
people want other options in their communities other than to 
call 911 and have a police officer come at the door when people 
are in a mental health crisis, for homelessness issues and 
school discipline issues.
    I've heard this from police chiefs. The International 
Association of Chiefs of Police issued a very powerful 
statement 2 days ago recognizing the systematic decades of 
underinvestment in the kinds of social systems, in housing and 
homelessness and education, and how that's all been placed at 
the feet of police officers.
    So, there also needs to be a holistic evaluation of what 
spending priorities have been in communities that have been 
saturated with a criminal justice response but underinvested 
with resources for education and jobs and the like.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Ms. Gupta.
    Mr. Morial, let me end with you. We recognize, as Ms. Gupta 
was saying, that too often--has my time expired, Mr. Chair? I 
can't see the timer.
    Chair Nadler. Your time has expired.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    A lot of important things have been said here today, but 
maybe the most important--and, frankly, the most succinct was a 
statement that Mr. Floyd made earlier at the prompting of the 
very first round of questioning from Mr. Gaetz when he asked 
Mr. Floyd to respond to something Ms. Underwood Jacobs had said 
during her testimony. He said, ``Life is precious.''
    Life is precious. George Floyd's life was precious. Pat 
Underwood's life is precious. Life is precious.
    Our country, the greatest country ever, started on that 
premise. The document that launched this experiment in liberty 
we call America says this: We are all endowed by our Creator 
with certain inalienable rights. Among these are--what? Life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    I think it's interesting to think of the order the Founders 
placed the rights they chose to mention. Can you pursue your 
goals and dreams and happiness if you first don't have liberty, 
if you first don't have freedom? Do you ever have liberty and 
freedom if government won't protect your most basic right, your 
right to life? Because Mr. Floyd is right; life is precious.
    Mr. Bongino, do you agree with that statement, life is 
precious?
    Mr. Bongino. Absolutely.
    Mr. Jordan. You protect it every day in your job--your 
previous job. Is that right?
    Mr. Bongino. To the best of my ability.
    Mr. Jordan. You were a New York City police officer. You 
protected life every time you put on that uniform and did your 
shift, did your service. Is that right?
    Mr. Bongino. Proudly so.
    Mr. Jordan. When were you in the Secret Service, you 
protected life. You protected some pretty important life.
    Mr. Bongino. President Barack Obama and President Bush.
    Mr. Jordan. Two Presidents of our great country.
    Mr. Bongino. That's correct.
    Mr. Jordan. When you protected that life, you actually 
risked another precious--you risked your life. Is that 
accurate?
    Mr. Bongino. That's accurate.
    Mr. Jordan. Officers do that every single day, don't they?
    Mr. Bongino. Eight hours day, 5 days a week.
    Mr. Jordan. Every day.
    That is why you have been so strong in your language about 
this concept of defunding the police, abolishing the police--a 
policy proposal that is not consistent with the statement made, 
the best statement made here today, by George Floyd's brother, 
which says, life is precious.
    I think in your testimony earlier, you said, if police 
forces are abolished, if police forces are defunded, it's not 
some--I think you used the word ``amorphous mass.'' We're 
talking about human beings. We're talking about officers who 
put on the uniform and go protect our communities. It will put 
their lives at risk, won't it?
    Mr. Bongino. There's absolutely no question.
    Mr. Jordan. Just as importantly, because life is precious, 
it will put people's life at risk in the communities those law 
enforcement officers serve. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Bongino. That is accurate. Anyone supporting this 
should take an oath today to go to the many funerals of the 
thousands of Black lives, Hispanic lives, and White lives that 
will unquestionably be lost in the chaos that ensues in 
depoliced streets. You should commit today and raise your right 
hand to go to those funerals and listen to those crying parents 
watching their sons and daughters in those caskets.
    You want to vote for it? Then you go see the consequences 
of it. Because the streets will be chaos. You can't run away 
after that. Everyone will know what you did if you choose to go 
down this road.
    Mr. Jordan. Let's protect life. Let's recognize exactly 
what Mr. Floyd said, life is precious, and let's do that.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Swalwell.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
    First, to Ms. Underwood Jacobs and Mr. Floyd, my 
condolences to you.
    Ms. Underwood Jacobs, the Bay Area law enforcement 
community grieves with you. My younger brother was working just 
two blocks around the corner from where your brother was that 
night when we passed. We grieve with you, and we'll work to try 
and find his killers.
    Mr. Floyd, we know a lot about what happened to your 
brother because of citizen video, but let's say we didn't have 
the video, just the report. Too often, that's what we're left 
with. In that report, a statement issued by the Minneapolis 
Police Department, they said that after Mr. Floyd got out, he 
physically resisted officers.
    You've watched that painful video. Did you ever see your 
brother resist officers?
    Mr. Floyd. I'm too emotional right now to talk about a lot.
    Mr. Swalwell. Yeah.
    It also said the officers were able to get the suspect into 
handcuffs and noted he was suffering medical distress.
    Mr. Crump, did you ever see that? Other than the distress 
of an officer's knee on his neck, did you see what was 
described in this statement released by the Minneapolis Police 
Department?
    Mr. Crump. No, sir, we did not. In the video, we saw him 
face-down in handcuffs.
    Mr. Swalwell. It also said, at no time were weapons of any 
type used by anyone involved in this incident.
    Well, you had a highly trained and experienced police 
officer using his knee. You would agree that that knee, in that 
case, was a weapon; is that right?
    Mr. Crump. Absolutely, for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.
    Mr. Swalwell. A weapon used for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.
    To often in our criminal justice system, the deck is 
stacked against persons of color because of statements that are 
falsely made in police statements and then put out to the 
public when there were no cameras, no public footage.
    Ms. Gupta, do you believe that the Justice in Policing Act, 
by having a body camera requirement, an independent 
investigation into misconduct, and a national police misconduct 
registry, could go a long way to make sure that we don't have 
more false statements?
    Ms. Gupta. I think the Justice in Policing Act contains 
several provisions that are really, really important to 
transforming the culture of policing in America, yes.
    Mr. Swalwell. I was consulting with an African-American 
member of my community last week at a church, and he told me 
something that you've said, Mr. Floyd. It sounded identical. He 
said, ``I feel safe two times during the day--when I wake up in 
my own home and when I come home from work to my own home. In 
between, I drive a nice car that I worked hard for, and people 
in my community think I stole it. I often see police officers 
pull up behind me and run my license plate and then drive off 
because they know I don't have any warrants.''
    What was shocking about that statement was, that was a 
police captain of one of our biggest law enforcement agencies 
in the Bay Area. If he doesn't feel safe, as a police captain, 
how can people who don't have the resources that he has feel 
safe?
    I want to talk about something else that you mentioned, Mr. 
Floyd, because we're here because individual tragedies and 
institutional tragedies continue to persist, and unless we do 
something now, they'll continue. You talked about the officers 
there not listening to your brother.
    On January 1, 2009, in Oakland, California, unarmed Oscar 
Grant laid on his stomach as an officer shot him in the back. 
His last words before he died were, ``You shot me. I have a 4-
year-old daughter.''
    In July 2014, Eric Garner, in a chokehold, in Staten 
Island, gasping to say ``I can't breathe'' before he died. No 
one on the scene heard him.
    Your brother, Mr. Floyd, on May 25, a police officer with 
his knee on his neck, as your brother said, ``I can't breathe. 
I want my mama. I can't breathe.'' The officers on that scene 
did not hear your brother.
    Because of this tragedy, the world is listening now. What 
do you want them to hear?
    Mr. Floyd. I want them to stop hiring corrupted police 
officers. I know there's no way to figure out who's good and 
who's bad, but we got to find a way.
    Because your heart, it has to be big if you're an officer. 
You just can't use the badge to be able to do what you want to 
do when you want to do it. You're supposed to serve, and you're 
supposed to protect.
    I didn't see anybody protecting and serving that day when 
my brother was on his front, on his chest, hands behind his 
back, pleading, ``Please, please. I can't breathe.'' A grown 
man, 46 years of age, crying for his mom.
    It just hurt, just looking. All the time, people try to 
show it to you, figuring it out. They lynched my brother. That 
was a modern-day lynching in broad daylight.
    People was out there pleading, ``Please, please, get off. 
He can't breathe, he can't breathe.'' People were video-
recording it. Nobody cared. Nobody.
    My brother, he lost his life before 8 minutes and 46 
seconds. He went unconscious. His life was gone. They just 
dragged his body across that concrete, his lifeless body. Every 
day, I'm going to have to live with that. My family's going 
have to live with that. His kids are going to have to live with 
that. I just don't know.
    Right now, I'm happy that we are getting one step closer to 
justice, but for the time being, I still need time to grieve 
with my family, because I haven't had that chance yet.
    Mr. Cicilline. [Presiding.] Thank you.
    The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Swalwell. I yield back.
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Reschenthaler is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I just want to say thank you to all the Witnesses who came 
here to testify today.
    Mr. Floyd, Ms. Underwood Jacobs, it takes an incredible 
amount of courage to come here and talk about this after losing 
a loved one. So, I know I speak for all my colleagues when I 
thank you for your willingness to come here and share your 
stories with this Committee. As Leader McCarthy said earlier 
today, George and Patrick will not be forgotten.
    Everyone in this room agrees that police officers who abuse 
their power must be held accountable for their crimes. I hope 
that we can also agree that the vast majority of law 
enforcement officers choose their line of work because they 
want to protect their communities. They put themselves in 
harm's way every single day, and they do it to keep us and 
America safe.
    In southwestern Pennsylvania, we've seen firsthand how the 
selflessness of the police actually saves lives. In 2018, 11 
Jewish worshippers were killed by a hateful, anti-Semitic 
madman at the Tree of Life synagogue. The Pittsburgh police and 
police from around the region ran into open gunfire, and if it 
were not for their heroic efforts, the tragic loss of life 
could have been much worse.
    So, that's why I'm incredibly alarmed to hear calls from 
the left to defund our Nation's police departments. Those on 
the left can try to minimize this, but I just heard my 
colleague from Arizona go through a litany of statements from 
those on the left that are calling for defunding and 
dismantling police departments.
    I think that, if anything, the murder of George Floyd 
demonstrates the need to invest more in our police departments. 
We should focus on improving training to promote good police 
practices. We should also be providing mental health care, 
especially for those that are struggling with PTSD and other 
job-related stresses.
    Additionally, we should work to build stronger bonds 
between law enforcement and the communities they serve. We can 
start by having school resource officers in our schools.
    I recognize--I'm sorry. We must recognize and we must 
empower good police officers while terminating bad actors.
    With that said, Mr. Bongino, do you think that defunding 
our Nation's police departments is an effective way of 
addressing instances of police misconduct?
    Mr. Bongino. No. It's a disastrous policy.
    I think one of issues that hasn't been considered are the 
second-order effects. I mean, obviously, the first-order 
effects are quite obvious. Less police on the streets means 
more crime. There's simply no deterrent to crime. Unless you 
trust in the goodness of every man's heart, which would be 
potentially disastrous, you are going to have more crime.
    Think about the second-order effects. Has anyone on the 
panel considered the brain drain that would happen? You will 
have child abuse investigators, who have a very unique ability 
they have accumulated over time to look a child in the eye and 
know right away when they're trying to protect an abusive 
parent because they've been threatened--I've seen it.
    What about the child sexual abuse online, where some of 
these people, they can look at an image and tell six different 
degrees of separation, how that person got there and who is 
that abused child? You're going to defund them too?
    What about the latent print officer that shows up at your 
house for a burglary that's been taking fingerprints for 20 
years? You're going to teach someone that in 5 minutes in a 
social worker police academy? Again, God bless our social 
workers; that's not what they do.
    What about the homicide detectives I worked with? When I 
was young, rookie Secret Service agent, I couldn't break a guy 
on interrogation. I couldn't get him to admit the crime. He 
didn't want to admit it. We had a guy walk in--he had 
experience. He walked in, knew how to interview. Within 5 
minutes, we had a full confession, admitted to everything, 
because he'd done it before, and he knew exactly the back-and-
forth of interview and interrogation.
    These are skills that are going to be missing from our 
streets. You don't understand the catastrophe that would 
follow. I can't emphasize in strong enough terms the disaster 
this would be if anyone follows through on it.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Bongino.
    I want to talk about the effect this would have on the 
communities that are most vulnerable. For example, affluent 
communities. If police forces were dismantled and defunded, 
those affluent communities would just hire private police 
firms. In fact, there's anecdotal evidence that that's already 
happened in some places.
    Could you talk about the effect, the sad irony we would see 
if this happened, and what it would have on the most vulnerable 
communities?
    Mr. Bongino. Yeah. Think about it. With the 75 Precinct in 
East New York, Brooklyn, where I worked, a couple of years 
before I got there, they had more homicides in that one 
precinct in New York City than the entire city of Baltimore had 
a few years ago. By the time I got there in the '90s, they had 
cut that down to such a point that the entire crime rate in New 
York City was almost equivalent to that of Baltimore City, a 
city multiple times the size.
    This will save real lives, if we increase our police, not 
decrease our police budgets. That's insane.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you.
    I yield.
    Mr. Cicilline. I now recognize Mr. Lieu for his questions 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lieu. I want to thank Chair Nadler and Subcommittee 
Chair Bass for your excellent leadership on this outstanding 
legislation.
    We are here because Black lives matter. Most Republican 
officials have been unable to say those three words. The 
President has been unable to say it. The Attorney General 
hasn't said it. The overwhelming majority of Republican 
Senators and House Members have not said it. Why does this 
matter? Because you can't fix the problem if you can't even 
identify the problem.
    This is not a problem of a few bad apples. This is 
systematic, institutional racism against Black Americans.
    All life is precious. Black lives are subjected to much 
higher risk of brutality from the police than White lives. 
That's what the data shows. We know, for example, that Black 
Americans are killed at a rate twice as high from police than 
White Americans.
    Our government murdered George Floyd and countless Black 
Americans. It wasn't one rogue cop who put his knee on George 
Floyd's neck. There were an additional two police officers who 
had their knees on George Floyd's body, and then a fourth 
officer who stood as a lookout, and then a Minneapolis Police 
Department spokesperson who gave a completely misleading 
initial account of what happened. Then there were the officers 
and civilians at the department who knew about the 18 
misconduct claims against Derek Chauvin and didn't take strong 
enough action.
    It takes a village to allow for the persistent, systematic 
murder of Black Americans by our government, and this has got 
to stop.
    The Justice in Policing Act is a critical step to stopping 
the state-sanctioned police brutality against Black Americans. 
It has a lot of great provisions. The first one I would like to 
focus on is training.
    Now, is training going to stop bad cops from doing bad 
things? No. It might help good cops from doing bad things.
    I note for the record that, in terms of training hours, 
according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, police recruits 
spend, on average, 840 hours in basic training and 500 hours in 
field training, for a total of 1,340 hours. In California, to 
be a licensed cosmetologist requires 1,600 hours. So, in other 
words, it takes more training hours to be a hairdresser than to 
be a police officer.
    Now, just as important as the number of hours is how we 
train our officers. I'm very pleased that this legislation 
requires training in racial bias and racial profiling and in 
procedural justice.
    My first question today is to Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis, when you testified before this Committee last 
September, you talked about procedural justice. Can you explain 
what procedural justice training is and why it's so important?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I can.
    The basic concept of procedural justice is, the evidence 
that shows people comply with the law not because they're 
afraid of the police or even going into custody; they comply 
with the law because they're given a voice, they believe the 
law is fair and equitably applied, and that the process will be 
fair to them.
    We know this over the years when people get tickets and we 
survey them. How they're treated determines their view about 
that process more than whether or not they got the ticket.
    So, this idea of procedural justice is a way to obtain 
compliance, how to get people to [inaudible] but to comply. It 
should be trained so that officers know how to gain compliance, 
how to give people a voice, how to recognize how they treat 
people has a greater impact on how they respond to that 
authority than anything else.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you very much.
    My second question is to Ms. Ifill.
    Recently, Attorney General Bill Barr stated that he didn't 
think there was systematic racism in law enforcement systems. 
Do you agree with him that this is just an issue of a few rogue 
cops rather than the systems we currently have in place?
    Ms. Ifill. Not only do I disagree with him, but if Attorney 
General Barr would consult the reports issued by his own 
department in pattern-and-practice investigations in over two 
dozen jurisdictions throughout the country, he would learn that 
systemic racism actually exists in police departments around 
the country. That has been fully investigated and found by the 
Department of Justice, who sued those jurisdictions and put 
them under consent decree.
    The bad-apple theory of policing reform is a failure. It 
looks only at individual officers instead of the system in 
which they operate. If we want to change culture, if we want to 
change relationships, then we have to change the rules that 
govern that system.
    There is no change that happened in this country, 
especially culture change, that happened because of midnight 
basketball or that happened because we all got in a room and 
ate together. We didn't end racial discrimination and 
segregation in schools by all getting together and having a 
meeting. It actually required law to make it happen. We didn't 
end the barring of women from being hired in certain 
professions by having a conference. It required the law.
    Now we have found a systemic problem that has been with us 
for decades that required law to actually change the context in 
which policing happens in this country and to give us a chance 
to make [inaudible] and to look at public safety more broadly 
than we've done in the past and to make police officers 
accountable within that system of public safety.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you very much.
    The time of the gentleman has expired.
    I now recognize Mr. Cline for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Across the street from the Capitol, above the Supreme Court 
is inscribed ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Today I stand with 
fellow Americans in condemning the brutal killing of George 
Floyd and so many others who have been denied that equal 
justice under the law.
    Mr. Floyd, Ms. Underwood Jacobs, we grieve with you, and we 
mourn with you. You have our sincere condolences for your loss.
    Mr. Floyd's killing was an outrageous Act of violence 
committed by a member of law enforcement with a long record of 
over a dozen citizen complaints. With the recent arrest of the 
former officers involved, I look forward to justice being 
served and being served quickly. For so many others, they will 
not see that justice served.
    In the time that has passed since Mr. Floyd's murder, many 
more examples of injustice across the Nation have had the 
spotlight shone upon them, including Breonna Taylor in 
Louisville, who was killed by officers in her apartment when a 
no-knock warrant was served at her residence by officers 
looking suspects.
    American justice should be served in a court of law, but, 
sadly, many have been denied this right, having been killed 
while being brought into custody.
    Mr. Chair, in my district office, I have a copy of one of 
Norman Rockwell's ``Four Freedoms,'' the ``Freedom of 
Speech''--one of the freedoms given to us by our Creator and a 
cornerstone of American democracy.
    As we mourn the death of George Floyd, we're also 
witnessing Americans who continue to exercise their First 
Amendment rights to peaceably assemble to protest Mr. Floyd's 
death and highlight other instances of police violence across 
the country and the need for significant, real reform.
    Congress should continue to work together to find solutions 
to these pervasive problems and ensure that all Americans are 
being afforded access to equal justice under the law. I believe 
there are many ways we can continue to work together, rather 
than put forward policies that divide us.
    This Committee has a long history of working together to 
find bipartisan solutions on issues facing our justice system. 
The FIRST STEP Act, just 2 years ago, reformed our Federal 
criminal justice system. This Act included provisions focused 
on reducing recidivism, reforming incarceration policy, 
correctional reforms, sentencing reforms, and improved 
oversight.
    Many of the policies included in Chair Bass's bill are 
ideas that can achieve that bipartisan consensus once again. 
Increased data collection about officer-involved shootings, 
body cameras, outlawing chokeholds, making lynching a Federal 
crime, demilitarizing our police forces are all areas where we 
can potentially find that bipartisan consensus.
    Although we may need to review certain tactics and methods 
used by law enforcement, we cannot continue to consider the 
irrational and ridiculous notion of defunding, disbanding, or 
eliminating our police departments. The rule of law is 
foundational in the United States, and we must advance 
solutions that provide fair access to justice while enforcing 
our laws. As John Adams said, we are a Nation of laws, not of 
men.
    The vast majority of those who serve and protect are good 
people and stand firmly against the violent and hateful actions 
of bad officers. At the same time, we cannot ignore the need to 
have dialogue and understanding when confronting difficult 
issues like the ones before us today.
    We must also look at the departmental policies that are 
keeping bad officers in their positions. A substantial number 
of collective bargaining agreements among police departments 
limit officer interrogations after alleged misconduct, mandate 
the destruction of disciplinary records, ban civilian 
oversight, prevent anonymous civilian complaints, indemnify 
officers in the event of civil suits, and limit the length of 
internal investigations.
    Instead of efforts pursued by the majority to expand police 
unions, we should be limiting the scope of their collective 
bargaining and ensure that laws already on the books aren't 
hampered by contracts that they've negotiated, such as the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, whose 
effectiveness has been diluted because DOJ's attempt to reform 
police departments must work around the terms of collective 
bargaining agreements.
    Mr. Floyd, you just said we might know be able to tell the 
good cops from the bad. We should be able to keep the bad ones 
from coming back.
    This is a time for personal and national reflection on how 
we can be better neighbors and better citizens of the greatest 
Nation on Earth. I truly hope we can seize this moment in time 
so that Americans can come together. I hope, as legislators, we 
can come together to craft solutions to make our communities 
safe, strengthen the bonds that unite us, and ensure that we 
can live out God's direction in Micah chapter 6, verse 8, to 
Act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cicilline. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    Mr. Floyd, I have a brother too, whom I love very much, and 
I cannot imagine your pain right now. My heart goes out to you. 
I want to say you've been a wonderful brother to your brother 
and a great citizen today. So, thank you for sticking with us.
    Professor Butler, the whole point of the social contract is 
that we'll be safer inside of it rather than outside of it, in 
the State of nature, State of war. That's why our Constitution 
protects life, liberty, and property against arbitrary 
deprivation by the government.
    Now, this legislation that we're looking at today, the 
Justice in Policing Act, will ban chokeholds, strangleholds, 
no-knock warrants, racial and ethnic profiling. It will 
criminalize lynching. It will end the militarization of local 
police departments. It creates a national police misconduct 
registry. It strengthens the standards of police 
accountability.
    My question for you is, given that you're someone who 
studies this for a living and teaches about it, is the social 
contract working for African Americans today with respect to 
policing? If not, will this legislation actually vindicate the 
value of human life that Members on both sides of the aisle 
have spoken about?
    Mr. Butler. Indeed, Congressman, I was so moved by Mr. 
Johnson's introduction when he talked about the dignity of 
every human life. Then we heard Ranking Member Jordan echo Mr. 
Floyd's heartfelt plea that life is precious.
    The justice Act of 2020 reaffirms the sanctity of life. It 
establishes a national standard for when the police can legally 
kill people and requires officers to employ de-escalation 
techniques. The Act states that cops could only kill people as 
a last resort and requires them to try to de-escalate the 
situation before resorting to deadly force. This is common 
sense, but it's not the law now.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    Ms. Gupta, do you agree with Mr. Crump that we should 
impose the traditional doctrine of respondeat superior, let the 
master answer for the employee, on police departments so that 
they have the proper incentives to carefully train and 
supervise and monitor their officers?
    Ms. Gupta. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Ifill, Mayor Morial spoke of the history of 
lynching and racism and the cycles of American history. There 
have two other moments in our history when America moved 
aggressively to try to transcend the original curse of violent 
White supremacy. One was Reconstruction, which lasted 12 years 
after the Civil War before it was undone by racism. The second 
was the modern civil rights movement, the so-called Second 
Reconstruction, when the blood sacrifice of Dr. King and 
Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman and Medgar Evers and Bob Moses 
and our colleague John Lewis and many others gave us the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This 
civil rights movement, this Second Reconstruction, also faced a 
violent backlash.
    What are our prospects for a third and enduring 
Reconstruction today, Ms. Ifill? What needs to happen for us to 
transcend the nightmare of racist violence and injustice that 
we seem to have been trapped in?
    Ms. Ifill. Thank you.
    Well, for purposes of this hearing, every Member of this 
body has to take responsibility for what is happening in this 
country and decide that they will put behind them their 
election prospects, their sound bites for FOX News or for any 
other news network. They have to decide that they want to get 
their hands around this problem.
    That means working together to try and solve what the 
people in cities in every State in this country have told them 
over the last 2 weeks is a problem that people will not 
tolerate anymore.
    It takes courage. It is going to take a lot of work for all 
of you in that body to come together. This bill has provisions 
that I believe you can agree on, from what I've heard today. I 
would encourage people to read the bill.
    This bill does not repeal qualified immunity, for example. 
It actually changes the standard that courts have distorted 
over time.
    Read the bill. There is nothing in this bill that should 
objectionable to anyone who cares about public safety truly, 
who cares about antidiscrimination and pledges themselves to 
it, who cares about the rule of law, and who cares about this 
country, and who believes, as many have said today, that they 
owe something to Mr. Floyd and his family and even to Ms. 
Jacobs and her family, because police officers are made unsafe 
by the current system.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    Ms. Ifill. So, I would encourage people to read the bill, 
and I would encourage people to step up with courage, not only 
in this body but in State and local governments as well, and to 
decide that they want to work together to solve this problem 
that the people have said cannot wait anymore.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Ifill.
    Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request that I would 
like to propose, if that's all right.
    Chair Nadler. [Presiding.] Go ahead.
    Mr. Raskin. A number of our colleagues have denounced 
several episodes of violence that have marred the beautiful and 
massive nonviolent protests that are transforming America 
today. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the 
following articles: ``White Supremacists and Other Extremists 
Exploiting This Moment'' in the Richmond Times-Dispatch; ``Far-
Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: 
Indicators of White Supremacists,'' in Just Security; and 
``Facebook Removes Nearly 200 Accounts Tied to Hate Groups'' 
encouraging Members to attend protests over police killings, 
and that is in ABC News.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MR. RASKIN FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Steube.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Floyd, I would offer my personal condolence to you in 
the loss of your brother. I can't imagine having to watch your 
family member die a needless and merciless passing. I feel 
confident that not only justice will be served for him, but I 
think that significant and necessary reforms will come of this 
tragic incident.
    I wish Ms. Underwood Jacobs was still here, but I also want 
to give my condolence to her. Hopefully she'll watch the video.
    I have brother and a father-in-law enforcement, and I 
cannot imagine the pain that you are experiencing, knowing that 
someone intentionally targeted him simply because he was an 
officer. I'm very sorry for your loss, and my prayers are with 
you and your family and with Mr. Floyd's family. In my prayers 
this morning, Philippians 4:13 came to mind. So, I hope that 
you can reflect on that.
    This is a dangerous, dangerous time for law enforcement and 
their families. Just in the conversation I had with my brother 
yesterday, he said he had two of his deputies quit because of 
all the issues that they are facing: Threats, targeting, being 
reconned on their homes, their vehicles being looted and broken 
into at their homes.
    Speaking of law enforcement officers, I also would like to 
give condolences to the family of the retired police captain 
David Dorn, who was fatally shot last week trying to prevent a 
pawn shop from being looted during what the left is calling a 
peaceful protest. His life mattered as well, and I commend his 
service to his community as a law enforcement officer and wish 
that there was a member of his family here represented today to 
give their remarks in his passing.
    While officers like David Dorn and David Underwood have 
been targeted and murdered during these so-called protests, it 
is extremely troubling that many of my colleagues on the left 
have failed to condemn the violence and rioting in our cities 
and communities across the country.
    Protests are peaceful. Looting, killing, stealing, 
destruction, and burning some of the very cities where their 
leaders just weeks ago were arresting people for violating 
stay-at-home orders is absolute lawlessness.
    The hypocrisy of these leaders arresting those violating 
stay-at-home orders for, say, going surfing or other 
activities--gathering in a synagogue with 10 or more people--
the hypocrisy of these leaders arresting those individuals for 
violating stay-at-home orders but sitting by while their cities 
burn is outlandish to me.
    On one day alone, on May 31, in Chicago, one city, on one 
day, saw 18 people murdered due to rioting in one night--the 
deadliest day in Chicago in 60 years. There were over 65,000 
911 calls. Can you imagine if we abolished the police 
department? Those 65,000 people would be calling, and nobody 
would be there to come to their rescue.
    That is not America. That is anarchy.
    When your leaders talk about disbanding police departments, 
you are emboldening criminals to continue to commit crime, 
knowing that there will be no one to stop them.
    I talked to my brother yesterday, and they had an incident 
at a Walmart where there were 30 individuals looting the 
Walmart--the Walmart that my wife and I go to on a pretty 
regular basis. They only had 3 officers respond to 30 
individuals who had weapons. Well, they're not going to use 3 
officers to respond to 30 individuals because of the safety 
risk incurred to those officers, so those 30 individuals got 
away.
    I thought that Pastor Scott had a great statement today in 
his opening comment.
    Pastor, you said, ``The prospect of defunding or 
dismantling our police forces is one of the most unwise, 
irresponsible proposals made by American politicians.'' I would 
agree.
    There are issues in this proposal that we can all agree 
upon: A law against lynching, which I supported and this House 
passed months ago, which we voted for earlier this year. 
Ensuring bad cops don't get hired at different agencies. 
Absolutely, that's an incredible idea. Reporting use of force 
in an FBI database. Creating a commission on social status of 
Black men and boys based on a Florida program that I 
participated in as a Florida Senator in the State of Florida. I 
was proud to be a part of that program.
    There are proposals in this bill that are extremely 
dangerous for those who protect our communities. Removing 
qualified immunity is only--qualified immunity is only a 
protection if officers follow their training and protocols. If 
they don't follow the training and protocols, they don't get to 
use the immunity, because it's qualified.
    If officers don't have qualified immunity to follow their 
training and protocols, I don't know a single person who would 
want to become a law enforcement officer in today's world, 
knowing that they may or may not be able to use the training 
and protocols that they were used to be able to apprehend a 
suspect who is not complying with them. Maybe that's the goal 
of the majority: To get less and less people to join our law 
enforcement offices.
    One quick point, in the little time I have left, is 
military equipment--or, as Mr. Raskin calls it, the 
militarization of our police departments. They use bulletproof 
vests and bulletproof shields to protect our officers who 
protect our communities. By stripping them of that ability and 
stripping them of their ability to use weapons to protect 
themselves is a dangerous, dangerous path to go down. I don't 
think that our country supports that.
    Mr. Floyd, I think, said it best.
    You said, ``Life is precious.'' I would agree with you. I 
would contend that all life is precious, and it all deserves 
protection.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Demings.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    I also want to mention our Subcommittee Chair and thank 
Chair Bass for her leadership.
    Thank you to all the Witnesses and for your endurance. It's 
worth it.
    Mr. Floyd, my family and I, along with my constituents in 
Florida, join you in grieving the death of your brother, 
George.
    I know that Ms. Underwood Jacobs is not here any longer, 
but my family and I and my constituents also join her in the 
death of her brother, Patrick. I have attended many law 
enforcement funerals, more than I care admit.
    We are outraged about both deaths. Let me say this, as law 
enforcement officers, they are held to a higher standard. I'm 
sure Ms. Patrick's--or Ms. Underwood Jacobs's brother deserved 
to wear the uniform. Everybody does not. That's why we are here 
today.
    I come before you as the mother of three beautiful Black 
sons. I also come before you as a former social worker and a 
former police chief.
    Many have tried to frame this tragic event as an us-versus-
them situation. That's not what this is. This is not about the 
community being against the police or the police being about 
the community. It's much bigger than that. This moment is about 
what's right, and this moment is about what's wrong.
    This is not a Black issue or a White issue. It's not a 
Democratic issue or a Republican issue. This is an American 
issue that has turned into yet another American tragedy. We are 
all have to get this right. Lord knows I want to get this 
right.
    While the actions of one brutally murdered, took the life 
of your brother, Mr. Floyd, three other officers did nothing 
about it for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. I have been on the 
street, and I know what it feels like to be waiting for backup 
to come. Eight minutes and 46 seconds feels like a lifetime. 
That's a long time. While one officer took the life of Mr. 
Floyd, three others stood by and did nothing for 8 minutes and 
46 seconds.
    Chief Davis, would you talk for just a moment of an 
officer's duty to act? In general. An officer's duty to act. 
For example, if they received a call for service, does an 
officer have the ability to simply refuse to go to that call? 
Certainly, when they see a crime in progress, a wrongdoing 
being perpetrated by a fellow officer, please talk about their 
obligation to intervene and also report to the agency that bad 
behavior.
    Chief Davis?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    I agree with you 100 percent. That is why one of the things 
I asked for earlier was the reaffirmation of the oath of 
office, because the officer takes the oath to the Constitution 
to protect and serve, and they have a duty to serve. We say 
against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
    They have the duty to take the calls that they're sent to. 
They have the duty to enforce the law. Most policies require 
the duty to intervene. So, they were morally obligated, they 
were procedurally obligated, they were legally obligated to 
intervene with Mr. Floyd's murder.
    They're legally obligated to respond to the calls. We 
expect them to go to active shooters. We expect them to go to 
bank robberies, domestic violence. We also expect them to be 
consistent. So, anyone that's violating the law should be held 
accountable, and there's not a pass because you wear the badge.
    As you know as a chief, as I just spent 9 years as a chief, 
you should be held to a much higher standard. That standard 
includes a duty to intervene, a duty to report misconduct, and 
a duty to render first aid, because those are the high 
standards of this profession.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Chief Davis.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Armstrong.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I'm not sure that an at-large Representative from a State 
that is 89 percent White and 100 percent rural is always the 
best person to address these issues, and I don't pretend to be. 
We neighbor Minnesota. Minneapolis is the city that is, far and 
away, the closest to North Dakotans' hearts. On May 25, we 
watched in abject horror as your brother was brutally murdered.
    On May 27, our entire State mourned because Officer Cody 
Holte was killed trying to save another officer who been 
wounded, independent of anything else that is going on in the 
rest of the country.
    The very next Tuesday, we buried Officer Cody Holte, and it 
was an incredibly beautiful and incredibly tragic funeral. 
Yesterday, I watched your brother's funeral, and it was 
incredibly beautiful and incredibly tragic.
    You know what I found through the whole course of all this? 
None of it was binary. I agree with Congresswoman Demings; this 
is not an us-against-them. This is not that situation.
    We can do reform. We've done it before. We've done it in 
States like North Dakota. I hope, when we go through a markup, 
that we are willing to work through this. Because I think 
you'll find there are a lot of people on my side of the aisle 
that agree with a lot of the concepts on the other side of the 
aisle.
    I will view this bill the same way I view every other bill: 
How does it work at 2:30 on the side of road in a State where 
it's often one officer--and, by the way, not just for the 
officer, for the officer and the person being detained. How 
does it work at 2:30 on the side of a road where backup is 
measured in hours and not minutes?
    Because my concern with these things is always: I don't 
pretend to know how to police in urban districts. I don't live 
in an urban district. You have to recognize that, as we intend 
to do these things, we have a high turnover rate. We have a 
hard time hiring law enforcement as it is in North Dakota. We 
have to make sure that it can work everywhere.
    If it comes to holding bad cops accountable and bad 
departments accountable, I'm all in. Because once they wash out 
everywhere else, they might end up where I'm at, and we don't 
want that either.
    After that, I think I would go with: I hope I can give some 
people some hope. Because regardless of how this works next 
week and regardless of what we mark up, what we move forward, 
we shouldn't be done. We should continue to work towards other 
things. Those things are disparities in sentencing, disparities 
in pretrial release--things that we quantifiably can show 
exist.
    In 2016, and this is primarily in State court, because it's 
about 88 percent of the prison population in the United States 
is in State court--Black prisoners serve essentially a 5-1 
prison sentence on drug crimes than White prisoners. Now, 
that's down from 16-1 in 2000, but it's pretty hard to pat 
yourself on a back for something that shouldn't exist in the 
first place.
    What we found is that, as we move forward and we dealt with 
minimum mandatory sentencing--and minimum mandatory sentencing 
was supposed to be to get rid of disparity in these sentences. 
What we found is blacks are almost twice as likely to be 
charged with a minimum mandatory offense as whites. So, instead 
of taking it out of the courts' hands and the judges' hands, 
we've moved it into prosecutors' hands.
    Pretrial release. As we continue to do this--States have 
done this; North Dakota has done this--working towards issues 
that allow for people to be released based on risk assessment, 
not monetary value. Those types of things work.
    This matters on the street, because if you know if you're 
going to get arrested that you're not going to get out, the 
likelihood of you resisting, absconding, all those different 
things go up significantly. We can do that.
    We should look at policies that are racially neutral on 
their face but have a historically disparate racial impact. 
School zone enhancement for drug crimes. As we've seen this go 
on years after years, these enhancements have gotten larger and 
larger, and they also tend to be in highly urban, densely 
populated, poor neighborhoods that are predominantly African 
American. Those enhancements need reform.
    We need to look at those things. Those are things we can 
continue to do and I will continue to do with everybody on the 
other side of the aisle.
    My point to this is not to deflect. We've heard all these 
different things today. I want my friends on the other side of 
the aisle to know that we can do this. I know we can do it 
because we did it in North Dakota. If we can do it in North 
Dakota, we can do it absolutely anywhere. It takes working with 
each other, and it takes working with each other on both sides 
of the aisle.
    So, no matter how we move forward on this and continue to 
work, I want you to know, there are people on our side of the 
aisle that are committed to working on these issues that will 
have real, positive impact for people across this country. It's 
not just about what we have going on now; it's how we continue 
to work in the future. So, reach out, ask us. We're here to 
help.
    Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Correa.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair Nadler and Chair Bass, for 
holding this most important hearing.
    Mr. Floyd, I want to thank you for being here today in this 
very difficult moment for you and your family. The murder of 
your brother, George Floyd, reminds us of all that the 
relationship between public safety and those who they are sworn 
to protect can't be assumed to always be one that's a healthy 
relationship.
    In my district, the new Ellis Island of the United States, 
we're diverse and we're always changing. New Americans live 
side-by-side with the Greatest Generation.
    We have to remember that we are not a police state, and we 
are not a police country and that, for public safety officers 
to do their job, trust and cooperation are essential.
    We've worked really hard over decades, the last few 
decades, to bring that trust into being. That's why it is so 
sad to see again another murder, another tragedy in our 
streets. This is exactly why this bill has to become law.
    When I was at California legislature, this issue kept 
popping up over and over again. In my work with the autism 
community, this issue again resurfaced about a decade ago. As 
police began to confront the tidal wave of maturing autistic 
children, we soon realized that police officers were not 
trained to deal with autistic adults. Autistic individuals, not 
capable of following directions, were considered to be 
uncooperative. Soon, violent confrontations arose and were 
reported in the press.
    My work in this area in updating California police officer 
standards was soon brought to the attention of a retired police 
chief in the Midwest, the father of an autistic adult who was 
also trying to address the issue of autism and public safety. 
This clearly shows that police training is not a local issue 
but a national issue. Again, this shows why this bill must 
become law.
    The Justice in Policing Act of 2020 improves police 
training and practices by creating law enforcement development 
programs to develop policies, best practices, among others.
    My legislation, H.R. 5251, Improving Community Safety Task 
Force, directs the Attorney General to also establish a task 
force seeking ways to reduce violent clashes between 
communities and public safety officers.
    Mr. Chair, at this point, I would like to submit for the 
record a letter from Brian Marvel, President of the Peace 
Officers Research Association of California, discussing how 
they support reforms.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MR. CORREA FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Correa. Mayor Underwood, I want to let you know that 
your family's loss, your brother, will also not go forgotten.
    I have a question for Professor Butler.
    Welcome, first, sir.
    Welcome, to all the Witnesses.
    Mr. Butler. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Correa. I'd like to take a moment to discuss arrest 
disparities.
    The ACLU has said African Americans are almost four times 
more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession. For 
Washington, DC, you have stated that African Americans are 
about 50 percent of those that use cannabis, yet they account 
for 90 percent of the people who are charged with marijuana 
crimes. Is that correct, sir?
    Mr. Butler. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Correa. How do you think the legalization of cannabis 
will help with social justice in this Nation?
    Mr. Butler. We think it would help create equal justice 
under the law.
    We know that, for drug crimes, African Americans don't 
disproportionately commit those crimes. The National Institutes 
of Health says that we don't disproportionately possess drugs. 
Most people report buying drugs from someone of their own race.
    If you go from NIH in Bethesda to the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics in DC, they'll tell you 60 percent of people locked 
up for drug crimes are Black--about 15 percent of people who do 
the crime, 60 percent of people who do the time. That's unequal 
justice under the law.
    Mr. Correa. So, would you say that we're mixing criminal 
justice with social issues, with medical issues, when it comes 
to our national drug policy?
    Mr. Butler. The drug addiction issue is an issue of public 
health, as is the issue of the epidemic of violence in 
communities. It's a public health issue, not exclusively a 
criminal law issue.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I yield.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    First, of course, I wanted to join my colleagues in 
expressing our condolences to your family, Mr. Floyd. I cannot 
begin to imagine the pain of having to relive that video over 
and over again.
    I just want to thank you for having the strength to speak 
here today to share George's story and his spirit and his words 
with this Committee but also with the country. I'm sure that 
your brother would be proud of you.
    Our hearts and those of every thinking and feeling American 
are with you and your family, and we're committed to making the 
changes that we need to ensure that you, your family, and every 
family in this country receives the equal justice and the 
security that our Constitution and our most essential American 
values demand.
    We're here to listen and to confront the harsh truths about 
racism in our country and the law enforcement practices that 
for too long have allowed police violence against communities 
of color and especially Black individuals.
    The murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, 
Tony McDade, and on and on have once again brought these truths 
to the surface: That centuries of systemic racism and inaction 
have resulted in a justice system that harms Black communities 
and policing practices that disproportionately kill Black 
Americans.
    This is unacceptable. We must change. America must change. 
Americans have taken to the streets in peaceful protest, all 
across this great Nation, in big cities and small towns, to 
demand that change. We are witnessing a long-overdue moral 
reckoning in our country, and each of us must examine how to be 
agents of that change, because we have a lot of work to do.
    Change must come at the local, State, and Federal level. 
Just as cities and States are reckoning with ways to protect 
communities and hold law enforcement accountable, Congress must 
do the same.
    I want to thank all our Witnesses for helping us understand 
the changes we need to make to achieve justice for all 
Americans, particularly which ones are uniquely crying out for 
Federal solutions.
    Having worked for decades as a public interest lawyer, I'm 
particularly interested in some of the legal fixes that this 
bill provides. I know that, sometimes, small changes in a 
statute can have enormous implications for holding powerful 
institutions accountable. The bill we're considering contains a 
few of those.
    Ms. Gupta, one of the ways that police officers can be held 
accountable is a Federal law that makes it a crime to violate 
someone's civil rights, including by using excessive force as a 
police officer. In its current form, it's very difficult to get 
a conviction under that law, because it requires proving that 
the police officer willfully violated a person's civil rights.
    Can you explain how changing the statute to require a 
reckless standard instead of willfulness would improve police 
accountability?
    Ms. Gupta. Yeah. So, the Justice Department currently only 
has one law that they can use to prosecute police misconduct, 
and, as you said, it has the highest mens rea requirement there 
is in criminal law, requiring not only that prosecutors prove 
that the officer used unreasonable force but, actually, also, 
that the officer knew that what he or she was doing was in 
violation of the law and did it anyway. That is actually a very 
high burden. So, for years, there have been case after case 
that the Justice Department has been unable to reach because of 
how high this burden is.
    There are many criminal civil rights prosecutors that for 
years have also wanted the change that is being proposed in the 
Justice in Policing Act because I think it would enhance the 
Justice Department's credibility in these matters to be able to 
hold officers who violate Federal civil rights laws 
accountable.
    So, the Justice in Policing Act asks--it changed the mens 
rea standard to ``knowingly or with reckless disregard.'' It's 
a slightly lower standard, so more cases will be charged.
    It also, really importantly, broadens the language of the 
Federal civil rights statute by including in its definition of 
a death resulting from an officer's action any Act that was a 
substantial factor contributing to death. I know many, many 
former U.S. attorneys that are eager to see this change as 
well.
    Ms. Scanlon. I actually was approached by one of those 
former U.S. attorneys at my train station this week, saying 
this was probably one of the key provisions.
    Ms. Gupta. There you go.
    Ms. Scanlon. It looks like my time has expired, so I yield 
back. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Ms. Garcia.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to all the Witnesses. I thank you for your 
patience. I know it's been a long day, but, certainly, the 
topic is worthy of that time and probably more times of 
discussion before we ultimately vote.
    To Mr. Floyd and Ms. Underwood Jacobs, we certainly 
accompany in your grief.
    I know you and I visited just a little bit at the funeral 
yesterday in Houston. Please know that you have my heartfelt 
condolences. I have five brothers. Sometimes they beat up on me 
a little bit, and sometimes they were helpful, and sometimes 
they were just brothers. So, I know how important that is. So, 
I grieve with you.
    Mr. Chair, I wish that we were here today under different 
circumstances. Instead, we're here because our Nation is 
struggling to heal after witnessing the horrific murder of 
George Floyd.
    As a person of faith, I was taught at an early age that 
we're all children of God. George Floyd was not treated as a 
child of God during his final moments on this Earth.
    Mr. Floyd, I stand with you and your family, and I stand 
with Black and brown Americans and all Americans across the 
country who just want to live and breathe without fear.
    I stand with my colleagues in the Congressional Black 
Caucus as we demand for America to live up to its values. We 
can no longer continue living in an America that says during 
the Pledge of Allegiance ``justice for all,'' but then not 
actually guarantee justice for all.
    We must put an end to police brutality, racial profiling, 
White supremacy, and racism in America. We are here today 
because our laws must boldly affirm that Black lives matter.
    I want to get to the topic of the case itself, the 
investigation and what may or may not happen, because I think 
that the Justice in Policing Act addresses a lot of the issues 
that I've seen as a lawyer, a former judge, when some of these 
cases are handled.
    I also might add that I served as the first chair of the 
Independent Police Oversight Board in Houston. I helped Mayor 
Parker put that together; then she made me chair for 2 years. 
So, I've seen some of these cases, and some of them are tough 
to make.
    In your case, Mr. Floyd, I think it was good that there was 
swift action. The police officer was arrested. It took a little 
time before they arrested the others. In many cases--the Arbery 
case. He was out jogging. Seventy-four days before an arrest.
    Just recently, we saw in the video that was just released 
in Williamson County an incident that happened in March of 
2019. The arrest was actually delayed, and the video was even 
more delayed. They just released it last week although it 
happened in March of 2019, a year later.
    So, sometimes it's not quick enough, and then we wonder 
why.
    So, I wanted to ask first Ms. Ifill, if she's still with us 
by video: In terms of investigations, are we adequately 
addressing the need for an independent investigation in the 
Justice in Policing Act?
    Ms. Ifill. Yes. This is one of the most important parts of 
the legislation. It is critical that police feel that these 
killings and these abuses are investigated by someone who is 
independent, who is not connected with the local prosecutor's 
office, and who can bring fresh eyes to bear on whether there 
was a violation of the Constitution or violation of criminal 
law.
    In too many places around the country, we have seen these 
incidents where prosecutors have demonstrated that they are 
unwilling to robustly lean into an investigation, unwilling to 
arrest, unwilling to indict, or if they bring the case before 
the grand jury, we then hear later that the presentation was 
lackluster and was not the kind of presentation we would expect 
of a prosecutor. So, we need independence.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you. I want to move quickly, if we can--
    Ms. Ifill. There is a colossal lack of confidence right now 
in the justice system, and it is deserved. As a lawyer, I can 
say it pains me, because I have dedicated my life, as a civil 
rights lawyer, to using the law to effect change.
    What you are seeing on the streets of this country, all 
over this country, is a colossal lack of confidence in the 
justice system.
    It is incumbent upon this body, in this legislation, to put 
together the means of restoring that confidence. That 
confidence only comes back if the justice system can be said to 
be fair, can be said to be legitimate, and can be said to 
produce just results. When it comes to cases of police killing 
unarmed African Americans at this point, we do not have those 
three.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I did have a question for Mr. Crump and Ms. 
Gupta, but I'll submit them in writing. I yield back my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Chair Nadler. Thank you, Chair Bass, 
Members of the Committee, and my fellow members of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, for your leadership on this issue.
    I want to express my deepest condolences to you, Mr. Floyd, 
and to Ms. Underwood Jacobs as well. I know all of us will 
continue to keep you and your families in our prayers.
    What happened to your brother, Mr. Floyd, and what happened 
to Breonna Taylor is truly an outrage. I pray that, together, 
we can meet the moment and we can honor their memories by 
passing the Justice in Policing Act. Not just to honor their 
memories, but the memories of so many others across the 
country.
    In 2016, here in Colorado, Michael Marshall, a 50-year-old, 
112-pound Black man, was killed by jail deputies. While 
enduring a psychiatric episode in jail, he was restrained in 
the prone position by five deputies for over 13 minutes, in 
which time he aspirated on his own vomit and went in and out of 
consciousness.
    More recently, in August of 2019, Elijah McClain, a 23-
year-old unarmed Black man, died after a physical encounter 
with the Aurora Police Department while walking home one night. 
After initially not responding to police, McClain was tackled 
to the ground by officers, placed in a chokehold, and vomited. 
He was later given ketamine, suffered a heart attack on the way 
to the hospital, and ultimately died. On the body camera 
recording, you can clearly hear Elijah say, ``I can't 
breathe.''
    These are the same words that we heard Eric Garner say over 
6 years ago as he was put in a chokehold by an NYPD officer. 
They are the same words spoken by Mr. Floyd, who had a knee to 
his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.
    It is past time that Congress banned chokeholds and other 
harmful police tactics that have led to far too many deaths. 
That is why the Justice in Policing Act is so important.
    I will say that I'm very encouraged by the broad base of 
support this legislation has received, including from the 
American Psychological Association.
    With unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, I'd ask to submit their 
statement of support into the record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MR. NEGUSE FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Neguse. As you may know--or, rather, I know the Chair 
is well aware, but as many I'm sure are aware also, data on 
policing has been particularly deficient for quite some time. 
As a result, it has hindered our understanding and our ability 
to hold law enforcement accountable in real-time.
    We don't know this week how many times an officer used a 
Taser or fired their weapon or how many times individuals were 
injured while they were in police custody. This is basic 
information, and its critical information to ensuring that such 
actions are regulated.
    That brings me to my first question, for Ms. Gupta, which 
is: How does the mostly volunteer system that we currently have 
on data collection fail to capture these data points? Second, 
how does requiring State and local law enforcement to report 
that data improve accountability?
    Ms. Gupta. Thank you, Congressman.
    It is a real shame that in 2020 we still do not have 
adequate data collection on use of force in this country. We 
have had to rely for several years on journalists putting this 
stuff together at The Washington Post and at The Guardian.
    The FBI has started to try to more systematically collect 
it, but this bill, the Justice in Policing Act, actually 
includes a requirement for States to report use-of-force data 
to the Justice Department, including the reason that force was 
used.
    Technical assistance grants are established in this bill to 
assist agencies that have fewer than 100 employees with 
compliance. That was often the reason that police agencies were 
not reporting on this.
    It, also, requires the Attorney General to collect data on 
traffic stops, searches, uses of deadly force by Federal, 
State, and local law enforcement agencies, and to disaggregate 
that data by race, ethnicity, and gender.
    There should be no reason why, in the United States of 
America in 2020, we aren't able to collect that kind of data. 
These incentives are going to be really important to making 
sure that we have that data, can learn from it, and can improve 
and change the culture of policing from it as well.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Ms. Gupta. Your testimony certainly 
underscores why the Justice in Policing Act is so necessary.
    Thank you again to each of our Witnesses for being here 
today and for testifying.
    With that, I'll yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. McBath.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to thank all our Witnesses that are still left. 
Thank you for being here for so long today. It's really vitally 
important that we hear from you.
    Most specifically, I want to say to you, Mr. Floyd, and to 
Ms. Underwood Jacobs, I offer you my deepest condolences. 
Because I know exactly how you feel. I know your pain. I can't 
sit here and say, ``I can only imagine.'' I know what you are 
going through.
    Mr. Floyd, I was so grateful to be able to go to your 
brother's funeral in Fayetteville, North Carolina. I am so 
sorry that you are here testifying over the loss of your 
brother.
    We come to this hearing today as a result of deep, morally 
painful wounds and events that happen in this country again and 
again and again. We come to remember George Floyd and Breonna 
Taylor and the many lives that have been lost to violence at 
the hands of those with a sworn duty to protect and serve us.
    We have lost too many of our brothers and our sisters and 
our mothers and fathers under these incidents of law 
enforcement. We know that these recent tragedies are part of a 
system of racial disparities that have been harming people of 
color for 400 years.
    In Georgia, where I represent Georgia's Sixth Congressional 
District, we recently lost the life of Ahmaud Arbery, who was 
pursued by three men and chased by two pickup trucks and 
murdered in the streets just miles from his home.
    As Georgia investigators testified last week, Ahmaud's 
killer used the ``N'' word as Ahmaud lay dying in the street. 
The investigator testified that the killer's father, a former 
police officer, carried a handgun during the pursuit, a handgun 
that was issued to him by his police department, a handgun that 
he carried as a police officer, still bearing the initials of 
the department.
    I grieve every day for these continued losses. I grieve as 
a mother who lost her own child to the very same violence that 
we're talking about today and tomorrow and next week and next 
month and next year.
    I lost my son, Jordan, by a man who called him a thug for 
simply playing loud music in his car. Jordan's tragedy is 
shockingly, shockingly similar to Ahmaud Arbery's: Being Black 
while being in your own community.
    I feel the pain experienced by too many families every 
single day. Every single day it happens, it's like a sucker 
punch in my heart and my gut. Because when is it going to stop?
    I pray every single day for our Nation. I pray every single 
day for every family. I pray that today we finally do something 
about it.
    I know that my time is going to be up, so I'm going to just 
ask one very quick question.
    Professor Butler, very briefly, do you think a commission 
that I have been working on, a commission that would study the 
social determinants and the effects of young Black men and boys 
in this country, do you believe that that would be justified in 
creating research and data for this very legislation that we're 
talking about today?
    Mr. Butler. I think African-American boys and girls 
desperately need interventions that don't blame them for 
problems that society causes. So, I think that that kind of 
commission is key.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you very, very much.
    I know that my time is up, but I am begging everyone here 
today, I am begging you to stand in the gap. I am begging you 
to speak up. I am begging you to be a part of solving the 
problems of all the young Black men and women in this country 
that die every single day. Because if you do not, you are 
complicit.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for moving 
quickly to hold this necessary hearing during a time of 
significant pain for our Nation.
    I want to recognize and thank Congresswoman Bass for her 
leadership to heal that pain. The Justice in Policing Act is an 
essential first step.
    Mr. Floyd, I offer my deepest condolences to you and your 
family. I can't imagine how difficult the last 2 weeks have 
been, and it is courageous that you are here today.
    Just yesterday, you laid your brother to rest, but his 
murder is a tragic reminder that we cannot rest. We have work 
to do so that George Floyd and Eric Garner, Philando Castile, 
Walter Scott, Antonio Arce, and too many others will not have 
died in vain and have their lives spur us to action.
    It's been more than 400 years since enslaved Africans were 
first brought to America's shores, shackled, and sold. We are 
in the midst of a reckoning and facing a very difficult truth: 
That, since that moment, there has not been a single day in 
which the maxim that our Founders knew to be self-evident, that 
all men are created equal, has been fully recognized by our 
country for Black Americans, not a single day in which equal 
justice under the law has been fully experienced by Black 
Americans. There is no greater tragedy in our history.
    Our generation has a choice: We can sustain America's 
original sin, or we can redeem her and be repairers of the 
breach.
    I recognize that the ability to end racism in our country 
is beyond the reach of this committee. We don't have the power 
to change every person's heart and mind. What we can do is 
address structural racism and enact tangible measures of 
transparency and accountability in policing that can help make 
everyone safe.
    This is a charge that every level of government must take 
up, from those of us in Congress to everyone who serves on a 
city council.
    During my time as the mayor of my hometown, we started a 
community policing trust initiative which earned the 
recognition from the Obama Administration's Department of 
Justice. We enhanced de-escalation training for our officers. 
We rewrote the guidelines for interacting with our immigrant 
community. We started putting body-worn cameras on officers on 
patrol, and then, when we saw the positive results, we budgeted 
for every officer on the beat to wear a camera.
    I'll be the first to tell you, there is more work to do, in 
every State, in every city, in every community in America.
    So, I want to ask our distinguished panelists specifically 
about body-worn cameras. In 2014, research by Arizona State 
University found that officers wearing body cameras were more 
aware of their actions and sensitive to the scrutiny of the 
footage by their superiors. I believe that every police officer 
on patrol in America ought to be wearing a body-worn camera.
    Professor Butler, do you believe that body-worn cameras 
help make members of the public and the police officers safer?
    Mr. Butler. Absolutely. Without body-worn cameras, there 
would be four killer cops who remained on the police force of 
Minneapolis.
    Mr. Stanton. President Davis, how can body-worn cameras 
improve training for police officers?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for the question.
    In addition to capturing what happens, it allows the police 
department to go back and look at everyday encounter--car 
stops, traffic stops, pedestrian stops--and evaluate the kind 
of conduct.
    There's a good study out of Oakland that Stanford did that 
showed how officers engaged men and women of color was 
completely different than how they were engaging nonminorities.
    So, there's a lot to be learned just by watching the day-
to-day activities, in addition to capturing the critical 
incidents that we're talking about.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
    Ms. Ifill, one of the main challenges of body-worn cameras 
is that they can be expensive to implement, not just the camera 
itself but capturing all the information that they provide.
    In your view, are they a wise and worthwhile investment for 
law enforcement agencies?
    Ms. Ifill. I think body-worn cameras are vitally important.
    I would caution that it is necessary to do more than just 
impose body-worn cameras. That means that there does need to be 
attention to the laws that govern who gets to look at that 
film. In jurisdictions where law enforcement officers get to 
look at the film before they have to answer questions, then the 
body-worn camera film is just another tool that assists law 
enforcement officers in [inaudible].
    I think you also have to pay attention to jurisdictions 
that are embedding facial recognition technology in their body-
worn cameras. This presents a very serious privacy concern for 
communities and particularly African-American communities.
    So, they're important. They're not the be-all and end-all, 
because we've seen film--we saw film with Eric Garner, we saw 
film with Walter Scott, the officer who killed Walter Scott, 
who was originally acquitted, or the jury was hung. We know 
that film is not the be-all and end-all. It is vital, for all 
the reasons that have been suggested.
    I do want to flag, however, those cautions about what 
happens with that film is also a question that I would 
encourage you to think about answering on the front end.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Chair Nadler, and thank you, Chair 
Bass, for bringing us together and for bringing forward this 
powerful piece of legislation at a time when our country 
desperately needs it.
    I thank all our Witnesses today. I pray that our words and 
our actions will be worthy of this moment.
    If anybody has a doubt as to systemic racism in this 
country, as to inequality based on race in this country, you 
can look no further than between me and my friend and 
colleague, Ms. McBath. I'm the mother of three White sons. I've 
never had to have ``the talk.''
    You were the mother of beautiful Jordan Davis. You had to 
have ``the talk.''
    If you doubt there is racism, look no further than the 
inequality of our life experience.
    I mourn with you.
    My sincere sympathy to Ms. Underwood Jacobs and her family 
for the loss of her brother.
    Mr. Floyd, it is heartbreaking, it is soul-crushing, what 
we witnessed 2\1/2\ weeks ago as the depraved murder of your 
brother. My sympathy is with you, but, more, my words and my 
actions will be with you. The world is watching.
    Ms. Gupta, I'd like to talk first about the issue of the 
national registry. There's been some conversation about it.
    I remember the horror of Tamir Rice's murder in 2014, the 
anger that we all felt, the dismay, of a police officer who 
killed a beautiful little boy. That police officer had been 
deemed emotionally unstable and unfit for duty by the police 
department he had worked at before joining the Cleveland 
Police. He never disclosed that information in his application. 
The Cleveland Police never reviewed his previous personnel file 
before hiring him.
    We must expect agents of government entrusted with the 
awesome responsibility of protecting and serving but also 
capable of using brutal and deadly force to be hired under 
rigorous standards.
    Do we know how pervasive this problem is of not knowing the 
background of police officers as they are hired?
    Ms. Gupta. There are some registries that associations, 
regional associations, have created, but there is no national 
registry of the sort that is being proposed in this really 
important legislation.
    This is why it is high time that this provision and the 
Justice in Policing Act be passed. It's time to have a national 
registry that has this information that could save lives and 
frankly, also promote community trust.
    This national registry would have misconduct complaints, it 
would have discipline/termination records, it would have 
records of certification. It contains conditions for money, for 
funds, so that agencies actually have to put in inputs before 
they can access Federal money.
    It is high time for this to happen.
    Ms. Dean. I was talking this week with my own attorney 
general, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, about the issue of a 
national registry. He, too, supports that. I do know that he 
has also, as attorney general, worked with and announced that 
he wishes to establish and have the legislature in Pennsylvania 
establish a State registry. I think it's important that my home 
State is considering that.
    Should the tracking of disciplinary and performance records 
of law enforcement be left to the States alone? Is that 
sufficient? Or does it mean that we should do both?
    Ms. Gupta. If you just have a patchwork of States that do 
this--and it's good that States are standing up, because right 
now is a moment where people are demanding change, and so 
States are beginning to take action. You will end up with a 
patchwork that will not be sufficient to actually achieve the 
bottom-line goal of having a registry that would be national.
    People move around.
    Ms. Dean. Right.
    Ms. Gupta. They look at jobs in other jurisdictions. So, it 
isn't enough to have this patchwork. It's time for Congress to 
Act and to create a national rubric for this.
    Ms. Dean. Absolutely.
    Mr. Floyd, I'd like to end with you, to thank you for your 
strength, for being here today. We can't imagine the 
exhaustion, the fatigue and grief. We are here with you, and 
the world supports you. I hope that offers you some 
consolation.
    Your brother will be remembered worldwide for a very, very, 
very long time to come. As your niece and his daughter said, 
``My daddy changed the world.'' He has and I'm confident he 
will.
    I'd like to give you an opportunity to tell us not about 
his death but about his life. What did you know and love about 
your big brother? What should we know about his life?
    Mr. Floyd. He was a role model for me and a lot of guys 
coming out the neighborhood because he was the first one to get 
a scholarship. We all wanted scholarships, and he was the first 
one, because it was just hard. You had to get an either 
academic scholarship or you would get one playing sports. He 
had got a scholarship, and it made everybody else feel like 
they could get one too.
    Ms. Dean. He was a talented athlete.
    Mr. Floyd. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Dean. I think he was a coach to people, wasn't he?
    Mr. Floyd. Yes, ma'am, he was a coach.
    There's just so much about him. Talking with [inaudible]--I 
don't know if you know him, but anyway. He talked to a lot of 
kids. He went to a lot of different places, met a lot of 
people. He went to China and played with Yao Ming--against Yao 
Ming.
    He did a lot of different things. He'd come back, and he'd 
share information with us. We'd get excited to see him every 
time, because he showed us so much. He was just a big, gentle 
giant.
    He took us to a lot of places. We went to Orlando, went 
down there, and watched basketball games. He had a lot of 
friends that's athletes. We just vibed and he showed us that 
there's other places in life besides being in the neighborhood.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Floyd. I 
see my time has expired.
    Mr. Floyd. Yes, ma'am.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    I want to start my 5 minutes with a video that I came 
across, and it really struck a chord. This happened in Miami. 
The women in the video were worried. They had been threatened 
by a neighbor who had a shotgun and was making racist slurs. 
They called 911 for safety and for protection. Instead, they 
were met with force.
    [Video played.]

Video is available at the following link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/45jeoq8bypylqi2/6%20Mucarsel%20 
Powell%20Video.mp4?dl=0

    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Conduct like this is never acceptable. 
The woman was unarmed. She called 911 because she felt 
threatened. She called 911 hoping that police officers would 
come to protect her. Instead--you saw those images.
    The officer in this video later lied about what happened on 
the police report and is now facing charges of misconduct and 
battery.
    Let me tell you, this happened only 2 months ago. There was 
no reason to subject someone to excessive force because of the 
color of their skin.
    The reality is that people of color live and face these 
prejudices throughout their entire lives. They face 
discrimination. It's ingrained in our culture since the very 
founding of our country. We have to confront this crisis head-
on.
    Currently, right now, there is absolutely no national 
standard to require police officers to deescalate and avoid the 
use of excessive force.
    We have to eliminate the injustices that Black men and 
women and communities of color face everywhere--in our 
government, in our society, in our healthcare system, and, 
specifically, in the police systems that we have seen for 
decades.
    I can also tell you that, from my own personal experience, 
this is not representative of every police officer. I have very 
close relationships with law enforcement in Miami. Officer Tuks 
Makambe (ph), Officer Tams (ph), they are part of the 
community. They have earned the trust of the community.
    We have to start by accepting that there is racial bias in 
our police system. We have to accept that. I continue to hear 
from Members of this Administration that there's no racism, 
that there's no racial bias. That is not true. Racism is 
systemic, and we have to hold our police departments 
accountable and demand transparency.
    To do that, we have to engage with the community through 
civilian oversight. Civilian oversight boards build bridges 
between police and communities by giving the people a voice in 
the policies that affect them. They ensure officer 
accountability through fair and open investigation. Over time, 
they build trust.
    Civilian oversight has to be done correctly, however. They 
have to be independent. They have to have subpoena power. They 
must have the authority to conduct investigations into police 
misconduct.
    Most importantly, civilian oversight boards have to 
represent the diversity in the community. Its seats need to be 
filled not by political appointees but with local citizens and 
the leaders of local organizations focused on community 
policing and accountability.
    So, I'm proud that the Justice in Policing Act promotes 
civilian oversight and allows Federal funding to go toward 
building civilian review boards.
    So, my first question is to Mr. Ron Davis.
    I wanted to ask you, you mentioned in your testimony the 
need for police to collaborate with the community to redefine 
and reimagine policing. That includes a new system that fosters 
civilian oversight.
    Can you please explain why civilian oversight is an 
important factor in preventing police brutality and is 
effective in holding police accountable?
    Mr. Davis. Yes, Congresswoman, and thank you for the call.
    I'll refer back to, I think as one of your colleagues 
mentioned, Sir Robert Peel, the 10 principles, or some call it 
the 9 principles of law enforcement. One of them says that 
police can only use their authority with the consent of people.
    The best way to have consent is you need the checks and 
balances to make sure that those, our police officers, myself 
included when I was serving, that have such enormous and 
awesome power, the power to take freedom, the power to take 
life, are held accountable with a check-and-balance system so 
that there is trust that there's legitimacy and that there's 
accountability.
    So, civilian oversight provides that extra layer, the same 
way we want independent prosecutors, independent 
investigations. To have an independent civilian oversight body 
is the checks and balance so that the awesome power that the 
police are given by the community is accountable, we're 
accountable for that, and that we then police with the consent 
of the people, and that's the only way we can be effective.
    So, there are varying models with it, but in general, the 
core principles of civilian oversight does go towards community 
policing. It makes the police in the community, which produces 
the public safety--both responsible, both being accountable. 
That's the best form of oversight that you can have.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Floyd, thank you so much for joining us today. Losing 
someone in a violent manner and having footage of that has to 
be the most devastating way of losing someone. So, I share with 
all my colleagues here today my deepest condolences to you and 
the family. We're here for anything that you need.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Cicilline.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to all the Witnesses who appeared today.
    I, too, extend my condolences to Ms. Underwood Jacobs on 
the loss of her brother and to you, Mr. Floyd, on the loss of 
your brother and will continue to keep you and your family in 
my thoughts and prayers.
    I hope you recognize, Mr. Floyd, that the brutal murder of 
your brother has awakened the conscience of this country. It 
has resulted in people all across America raising their voices 
and demanding an end to racial injustice, an end to police 
brutality, particularly against Black Americans and other 
communities of color, and for the creation of a safe, effective 
policing model for every single person in this country that 
will improve public safety and also the safety and 
effectiveness of police work.
    The tragedy is that these are not new problems that we're 
experiencing. Your brother's death is only the most recent 
example of ugly racism and police brutality that have been a 
stain on the soul of this Nation since our founding.
    I think everyone in this hearing brings their own 
experiences. So, before I was in politics, I was a civil rights 
lawyer, and most of my cases were police brutality cases. So, 
many of the hurdles that I faced in bringing those cases and 
seeking justice are addressed in the Justice in Policing Act.
    I then became mayor of the city of Providence and inherited 
a police department that was under a pattern-or-practice 
investigation by the Department of Justice, a police department 
that was really at war with the community. Crime was on the 
increase, and the public had lost confidence in that community.
    One of the things that was so effective in turning around 
that was the participation of the community, working in 
partnership with the police. We produced the lowest crime rate 
in 40 years. We became a fully accredited police department. 
The police officers became integrated into the communities they 
served.
    So, one of the things that I'm really concerned about is, 
the Trump Administration has changed the policies about these 
patterns-or-practice investigations. It was one of the things 
that we were able to use to force change that the chief of the 
department and I, as the mayor, wanted.
    Under the Obama Administration, the Justice Department 
opened 25 investigations into police departments, signed and 
enforced over a dozen consent decrees in places as diverse as 
Ferguson, Seattle, New Orleans, and had several open 
investigations. The Trump Administration then came in and 
really changed positions on that.
    I know, Ms. Gupta, you're familiar with that. What has been 
the impact of the decision of the Trump Administration not to 
pursue patterns-and-practice investigations?
    This legislation not only strengthens the ability of DOJ to 
do that but also gives that responsibility to the State 
Attorneys General. Can you speak a little bit about why that's 
necessary and why this is such a powerful mechanism for 
changing police departments and reforming police departments?
    Ms. Gupta. Yeah. The Trump DOJ has essentially abandoned 
and abdicated a mandate that was given by Congress in 1994 to 
investigate patterns and practices of systemic unconstitutional 
policing in police departments around the country.
    Since the Administration began, there has been the opening 
only of 1, on a very tiny issue in a police department out of 
Springfield, Massachusetts, compared to 25 in the Obama 
Administration and many others in Republican and Democratic 
Administrations prior to that.
    So, what that has meant is that the tool of these 
investigations, the tool of the consent decrees, has just been 
lying dormant.
    Typically, when I oversaw the Civil Rights Division, we had 
mayors and police chiefs that really, in numerous instances, 
were actually asking the Justice Department to come in because 
they needed Federal help in very bad situations. So, 
jurisdictions have not been able to rely anymore on the Justice 
Department to support these efforts.
    I think this bill, Justice in Policing, does a lot to 
strengthen the Civil Rights Division's authority, giving it 
subpoena power, giving it resources. It also gives State 
Attorneys General the ability to do these pattern-and-
practices, where they have already State laws that allow them 
to do it as well. That's, of course, in this moment, with a 
Justice Department that is very disengaged from these issues, 
an important thing.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    For Mr. Butler, very quickly, because I only have a little 
time left, I'm also very interested in the accreditation model, 
because I think that's a way to help transform police 
departments across the country quickly.
    I'm wondering whether or not you have a view as to whether 
or not the provisions that provide for training to end racial 
bias and to end racial profiling, whether there are really 
high-quality components of an accreditation system that can 
really effect systematic change?
    Mr. Butler. I think they're essential. We've gotten away 
from being tough on crime; we're now about being smart on 
crime. It's evidence-based practices. The evidence suggests 
that police can do better with appropriate training.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask 
unanimous consent that an article entitled, ``It's Official: 
The Trump Administration Will `Pull Back' from Investigating 
Police Abuses'' be made part of the record.
    Another article, entitled, ``The Trump Administration Gave 
Up on Federal Oversight of Police Agencies--Just as It was 
Starting to Work.''
    A final article, entitled, ``Trump and Sessions Released 
Cops from Federal Oversight. Now We See the Results.''
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                      MR. CICILLINE FOR THE RECORD                  
                      
                      
                      
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Cicilline. With that, Mr. Chair, I just want to end 
where I began, with deep gratitude to Mr. Floyd for the courage 
and the grace that you have shown and for being such an 
inspiration to us.
    I only pray and hope that my colleagues in the Congress of 
the United States will have the same courage and will be 
inspired to do the right thing and to respond in this historic 
way to really change the way communities and police relate and 
that it will all be done to honor the life and legacy of your 
brother.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Without objection, the following materials concerning the 
Justice in Policing Act and related issues, which have been 
submitted to the Committee's electronic repository, will be 
included in the record. A number of leading civil rights 
organizations, statements by the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
Constitutional Accountability Center, the Players Coalition, 
the YWCA, Adobe, Third Way, the National Partnership for Women 
and Families, the Blue Dog Coalition, and articles in Reuters 
and Boston Globe will be admitted into the record, without 
objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MR. NADLER FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Chair Nadler. I want to thank our Witnesses for 
participating in today's hearing, in particular, Mr. Floyd, 
with whom we have the greatest sympathy. Thanks.
    That concludes today's hearing.
    Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days 
to submit additional written questions for the Witnesses or 
additional materials for the record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:49 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]



      

                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



      

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================


                The Honorable Steve Cohen, Chair

   Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
           Liberties House Committee on the Judiciary

Questions for the Record for the Oversight Hearing on Policing 
          Practices and Law Enforcement Accountability

                         June 10, 2020

Question for Mr. Ben Crump 

    1. LMr. Crump, at the hearing I informed you that I planned 
to introduce a bill to amend 42 U.S.C. 1983 to allow 
individuals to bring claims against a law enforcement officer's 
employer based on a theory of respondeat superior liability. 
You agreed that, in addition to removing qualified immunity for 
law enforcement officers, such a change would improve police 
accountability.

         a. LCan you please further elaborate on why permitting 
        claims based on respondeat superior under section 1983 
        will improve police accountability for unconstitutional 
        miscon-
        duct?