[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H3959-H3963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPPORTING LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 295) supporting local law enforcement agencies
in their continued work to serve our communities, and supporting their
use of body worn cameras to promote transparency to protect both
citizens and officers alike.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 295
Whereas the United States Department of Justice issued a
report titled, ``Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras'', which
details a number of benefits of body-worn cameras,
including--
(1) increased transparency and citizen views of police
legitimacy;
(2) improved behavior and civility among both police
officers and citizens; and
(3) increased evidentiary benefits that expedite resolution
of citizen complaints or lawsuits and improving evidence for
arrest and prosecution; and
Whereas the University of Cambridge's Institute of
Criminology conducted a 12-month study on the use of body-
worn cameras used by law enforcement in the United Kingdom
and estimated that the cameras led to a 50 percent reduction
in use of force, and in addition, complaints against police
fell approximately by 90 percent: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes all law enforcement agencies and officers
for their tireless work to protect us and make our
communities safer;
(2) recognizes the potential for the use of body-worn
cameras by on-duty law enforcement officers to improve
community relations, increase transparency, and protect both
citizens and police; and
(3) encourages State and local law enforcement agencies to
consider the use of body-worn cameras, including policies and
protocols to handle privacy, storage, and other relevant
concerns.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson
Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H. Res. 295, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al
Green) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) for introducing
this resolution and commend them for their work on this important
issue.
Policing is an inherently dangerous job. Our law enforcement officers
deserve our gratitude for the work they do on a daily basis to make
sure that our streets are safe, the most helpless in our communities
are protected, and those who commit crimes are brought to justice.
I am very concerned that force is used appropriately and that police
officers are taking appropriate steps to protect innocent civilians
when they make encounters. There is increasing unrest in our urban
communities about policing.
I am also concerned with the repeated targeting of our police and law
enforcement personnel. Last week, a terror suspect believed to be
plotting to behead a Boston officer was killed in a confrontation with
Boston police. Last month, two police officers were killed by criminals
hoping to become cop killers. Officers Dean and Tate, responding to a
routine traffic stop in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, were gunned down by a
group of five men.
{time} 1730
This comes on the heels of more widely known murders last year of
Officers Ramos and Liu in New York, who were reportedly targeted by a
man looking to kill a police officer.
It is clear that we must find a better way for our police and
citizens to interact both in everyday situations and when more
difficult circumstances
[[Page H3960]]
arise. In May, the Judiciary Committee held a very informative and
productive hearing on policing in the 21st Century, where we looked at
many of these issues, including the use of body-worn cameras by police
officers.
Body-worn cameras present an opportunity to strengthen police and
citizens' interactions, but there are many issues surrounding the use
of body-worn cameras that should be addressed by legislators, law
enforcement, and the general public before Congress or State
legislatures mandate widespread use of this technology.
We must be cognizant of the cost and resources associated not just
with outfitting officers with body-worn cameras, but with the
regulations, training, and compliance associated with their use. We
should also be aware of the costs and privacy implications associated
with storing the footage of body-worn cameras.
Police routinely interact with crime victims, including minors, and
members of the general public. Would all of these interactions be
recorded and stored by law enforcement agencies? For how long? Who
would have access to this information? For instance, could it be
obtained in a civil suit, a divorce or custody case, or as part of a
Freedom of Information Act request?
If an officer exercises his or her discretion to turn off a camera,
it is possible the courts would impose an adverse inference against the
government if a defendant then argued that something improper happened
while the camera was not filming. The courts could also impose an
adverse inference if there is a technical or storage glitch that
interferes with taping or access to the video.
Society must also decide if it wants this technology recording us on
a constant basis. Last week, the President signed the House-passed USA
FREEDOM Act into law, which ended bulk metadata collection by the NSA.
We should exercise caution before mandating use of a technology that
has the potential to gather and store information about Americans, many
of them innocent civilians, based simply on a person's interaction with
a police officer.
Body-worn police cameras can serve an important purpose in improving
interactions between law enforcement and the general public and be a
valuable source of evidence of wrongdoing; but we, as lawmakers and as
a society, must ensure that this technology is used appropriately.
We have achieved this before when addressing the use of police
dashboard cameras, but we must now do so again in a situation that is
potentially much more intrusive.
Several police departments have already begun using body-worn
cameras, and various pilot programs are also underway. Their successes
and pitfalls will be instructive as we explore expanded use of this
technology.
I once again thank the gentleman from Texas for his work on this
resolution and also applaud the work of our law enforcement officers
nationwide.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today to support this resolution and to thank my colleagues
for putting forward H. Res. 295, particularly Mr. Al Green of Texas and
Mr. Clay and Mr. Cleaver--both of whom represent the Missouri area--and
a number of other Members who have joined in on sponsoring this
legislation.
I like this because it is a kick-start to what Members of Congress,
Mr. Speaker, have been talking about, and what we have talked about,
criminal justice reform.
As we well know, we in the Judiciary Committee are receiving
information. We are listening to Members; we are obviously listening to
Members who are committed and dedicated, and we are committed to
criminal justice reform.
This is the right kind of kick-start to be able to put on minds of
individuals that we know that this effort of criminal justice reform
requires the communication and cooperation of our law enforcement
officers and as well to recognize the vitality and the importance of
communities who have argued Black lives matter--or they have just
argued that lives matter, which they do.
Let me, first of all, join Mr. Goodlatte on acknowledging the tragedy
of police shootings. Whether or not it was the heinous shootings in New
York on two occasions and probably more or whether or not it was a
recent incident in Houston, Texas, when a valiant officer was mowed
down by a fleeing felon, or any number of incidents that have caught
our men and women in the line of fire--and their families have seen
their service, their life, and their contributions snuffed out by
violence--that is not something that we applaud and we certainly abhor.
I believe the language in this resolution gives us the sense of
Congress that allows us to recognize all law enforcement agencies and
officers, thanking them for their tireless work to protect us and make
our communities safer, and recognize the potential for the use of body-
worn cameras by on-duty law enforcement officers, to improve community
relations, increase transparency, and protect both citizens and police.
I will assure you that the Judiciary Committee will thoughtfully look
at legislation that fits squarely on the framework of this taking into
consideration many concerns and encourages State and local law
enforcement agencies to consider the use of body-worn cameras,
including policies and protocols, to handle privacy, storage, and other
relevant issues.
I am glad those are recognized because we are a country of laws, and
we recognize the civil liberties and civil rights of all citizens.
As we discuss this legislation, however, I want to emphasize the
importance of the timing. It is time for comprehensive policing and
criminal justice reform. We are witnessing a sea change unlike many
others with support for this great cause spanning the ideological and
party divide. We in the Judiciary Committee have spoken about it and
are finding common ways to work together.
In the area of policing, the problems revealed by several of the more
notorious incidents involving the use of lethal force against unarmed
citizens have captured the attention of the Nation over the past few
months and demonstrates a critical need for a national response.
Law enforcement officers individually will indicate training is a key
element of this. Any response to these tragic events must go hand in
hand with a holistic view of criminal justice reform. It will do us no
good to be able to point at one group and not try to help another, so I
am very grateful that my State, the State of Texas, has contributed to
this dialogue and most recently in grand jury reform.
As I have joined with my colleagues to acknowledge and celebrate law
enforcement and encourage the move forward on criminal justice reform,
I am grateful to again do it today, but we should also look at a vast
array of opportunities.
Sentencing and prison reform should be on our agenda. One such
proposal would give the Federal Bureau of Prisons the discretion to
release nonviolent prisoners who served at least half of their
sentence, are 45 or more years old, and who have not been disciplined
for a violent offense. This would not only alleviate some prison
overcrowding, but it would dip into the $75 billion that we are paying
for incarceration.
Congress should also look at the fact in the Federal system that
right now we give 47 days for 54 days of good time. If we did one for
one, it would be an opportunity to save millions of dollars, at least
$41 million; and 4,000 persons would be able to be lifted who would be
able to be rehabilitated.
One of the more difficult parts of coming into the criminal justice
system is the journey of coming out of it. Where an individual has paid
his or her debt, the process of reentering society is paid with
tremendous and often insurmountable obstacles.
I have drafted legislation that will allow those with a criminal
conviction to have a fair chance to compete for jobs with Federal
agencies and contractors. This ``ban the box'' measure delays a
potential employer's inquiry into the applicant's criminal history
until later in the hiring process. Employers can still ask, but pushing
the inquiry into a later stage in the process where you have seen
whether this person is ready and able to have a job.
Again, this resolution speaks about our view and affection for our
law enforcement and adding more tools. Each of us have had wonderful
experiences with those men and women who serve.
[[Page H3961]]
Mr. Speaker, the time for comprehensive policing and criminal justice
reform has arrived. We are witnessing a sea shift unlike any others,
with support for this great cause spanning the ideological and party
divide.
In the area of policing, the problems revealed by several of the more
notorious incidents involving the use of lethal force against unarmed
citizens has captured the attention of the nation over the past few
months and demonstrates the critical need for a national response.
And any response to these tragic events must go hand-in-hand with
changes to the entirety of our criminal justice system.
As a member of the House Judiciary Committee; as the ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations; and as a Representative from Houston, let me extend my
thanks to the Congressman from my home state of Texas for contributing
to the discussion of this very important and timely issue.
Just as I have joined with him in Houston before--to acknowledge and
celebrate law enforcement and to encourage and move forward criminal
justice reform--I am grateful to do so again today.
The very fact that this measure is on the floor today is a great
indicator that Congress is ready for comprehensive criminal justice and
policing reform.
This is why I am looking at reforms that will address all aspects of
our criminal justice system and drafting legislation accordingly.
One such proposal would give the Bureau of Prisons discretion to
release nonviolent prisoners who have served at least half their
sentence, are 45 or more years old, and who have not been disciplined
for violent conduct while in prison.
This would would not only alleviate some prison over-crowding, it
would result in substantial cost savings by removing the expensive
medical care for older prisoners.
By including a clarification of the federal prisoner good time credit
law, the cost savings of this proposal is even more significant.
Congress intended for all federal prisoners to be eligible for 54 days
of good time credit, not 47 days as currently interpreted by the
Federal Bureau of Prisons.
This small change--just one week per year--will not only reflect our
original intent, it will save at least $41 million annually.
One of the most difficult parts of coming into the criminal justice
system is the journey of coming out of it.
For an individual who has paid his or her debt, the process of re-
entering society is paved with tremendous, and often insurmountable,
obstacles.
I have drafted legislation that will allow those with a criminal
conviction to have a fair chance to compete for jobs with federal
agencies and contractors. This ``ban-the-box'' measure delays a
potential employer's inquiry into the applicant's criminal history
until later in the hiring process.
Employers can still ask--but pushing the inquiry until a later stage
in the process allows applicants to get a foot in the door and be
considered at the early stage on their merits alone.
Many studies, including one released by the Journal of Adolescent
Health, demonstrate that the adolescent brain continues to develop as
young persons mature well into their 20s. Yet, we begin holding our
young offenders accountable as adults when they reach the age of 18,
16, and sometimes even earlier. And we send them off to what many
describe as ``criminal college.''
This is why I am developing legislation that will provide judges with
new and different options when a young offender comes before them.
These options will give judges discretion to tailor a punishment to
that young offender's needs.
And, when sending a young offender to prison is necessary, my
legislation will ensure that the Bureau of Prisons separates these
young offenders out from the rest of the prison population and provides
specialized programs for their needs. This will put young offenders on
a path for change, not one of crime.
It is not enough to improve the system of criminal justice, we must
also address the unnecessary loss of life that can result from police
and civilian interactions. Reform must take a step towards increasing
trust between our communities and law enforcement.
This is why I am developing legislation that will provide law
enforcement agencies with the funding and assistance to put in place
the policies, protocols, and training programs in accord with national
accreditation standards.
But rebuilding the trust in this relationship also requires greater
transparency when government responds to incidents involving the use of
lethal force against unarmed citizens.
This is why I have drafted legislation that provides incentives and
support for jurisdictions to bring in an independent investigation and
prosecution team for an unbiased review of such incidents.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time on this debate.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure at this time to yield
5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), the
author of this legislation.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to stand in
the well of the House and have an opportunity to advocate on behalf of
the constituents of the Ninth Congressional District. Today is no
exception.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand here in support of bipartisan
legislation, legislation that encourages law enforcement to use body
cameras. This legislation is legislation that I am proud to say has
received a good deal of support and a good deal of consideration and
deliberation.
I would like to thank the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, for his
assistance in bringing this legislation forward. Of course, the
Honorable Nancy Pelosi must be given kudos as well. I thank her for
allowing the legislation to come forward and assisting.
The Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, I want to thank him because we had a
conversation concerning this legislation. Of course, the chairperson of
the Judiciary Committee, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, he and I have had
an opportunity to talk through this legislation, and I am eternally
grateful for the consideration that you have given, sir, and I thank
you.
I also would like to thank the dean of the House of Representatives,
the Honorable John Conyers. He has been here on so many occasions when
legislation that is exceedingly important has been passed upon and has
been a voice, a voice on all of these issues through the years. I am
proud to say that I had an opportunity to speak to him about this
legislation.
Of course, I want to thank Mr. Ted Poe of Texas. He and I came to
Congress together, and we worked together. This is a piece of
legislation that he was the first to sign onto, H. Res. 295.
Mr. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, he and I have worked together to
shepherd this from the very beginning, and he is still a part of it. He
is not here tonight, but he is with us on this legislation. I am proud
to say he is a friend, and he has been a partner throughout the effort
to bring this legislation to the floor of the House.
Mr. Luetkemeyer, he has been a friend in this; Mr. Clay of Missouri;
Mr. Yoder of Kansas; and, of course, Ms. Clarke of New York--all
friends and all supportive of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution, as has been indicated, is the
beginning. I don't see it as the end of a process. I see it as more of
a preamble with the Constitution to follow. I see it as a lawyer might
see an opening statement with the closing statement yet to come.
Of course, as a Christian, I see it as a part of Genesis, with many
revelations yet to come. It is a good first step, and it is a good step
in the right direction. I don't see it as the end of the process, but I
do want to commend and thank those who have helped us to get to this
point.
I would cite now, if I may, a Justice Department report. This report
styled ``Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras'' found that body-worn
cameras increased transparency. People have the opportunity to see what
actually took place. It makes a difference because this will increase
police legitimacy.
Officers don't have to get into disputes about what actually
occurred. The empirical evidence is there by way of the camera's eye.
It will improve citizen and police behavior. Once the camera is on
and once people know that it is on--that is both citizens and police
officers--their behavior tends to be adjusted such that we get better
results.
It will improve effective prosecution. This is evidence that can be
introduced into court. When it is introduced, it can help effectuate
positive results.
Another study, a study from the University of Cambridge, its
Institute of Criminology, after a 12-month study, found a 50 percent
reduction in the use of force as a result of body cameras, a 50 percent
reduction in use of force, a 90 percent reduction in complaints against
police officers as a result of body cameras being utilized.
Of course, there is a final study that I will cite in Rialto,
California. This
[[Page H3962]]
report from Rialto, California, indicates that, after 1 year of use of
body cameras, there was a 60 percent reduction in the use of force and
an 88 percent reduction in complaints against police officers.
The evidence is in. It is clear that these body cameras do provide an
opportunity for us to have the transparency we need, for us to provide
legitimacy for both police officers and citizenry but, more
importantly, to reduce the complaints that we see emanating from scenes
that are disputed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
{time} 1745
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we see a
reduction in complaints. As we view the many incidents that have
occurred around the country, there is no question that there is a
divide. I believe that these body cameras can span the chasm across the
divide and make a difference in the perception that we have in the way
our police and our communities interact with each other.
I am proud to be a sponsor, and I am proud to have the cosponsors
that we have. I am proud that the chairperson of the Judiciary
Committee has signed onto this and that the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee is on board.
I want to thank my colleague from Houston, Texas, the Honorable
Sheila Jackson Lee, who has served on the Judiciary Committee for many,
many years, and I am most appreciative that she, too, finds favor with
this piece of legislation. I am honored that she is on the floor
tonight to shepherd it through, and I pray that my colleagues all will
support what I believe to be a piece of legislation that can span the
chasm between the police and the community in a most positive way.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers remaining, and I am
prepared to yield back.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume as I am the final speaker.
First of all, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his very eloquent
explanation of this legislation. Let me add my appreciation as well to
Chairman Goodlatte, to Ranking Member Conyers, and to Chairman
Sensenbrenner. It is certainly my pleasure to manage and to work with
this legislation, in the purpose of this legislation.
I close with just a few points that I feel compelled to comment on.
As I do so, I am not giving all of the names of those fallen. As I have
indicated, we tragically buried an HPD officer just a couple of weeks
ago and, of course, officers in Mississippi, officers in New Mexico, in
Omaha, Nebraska, and in Pennsylvania, among others. We recognize that
we are challenged and that we must find that common ground. Again, I
note that this kick start will help us to look at comprehensive
criminal justice reform.
Let me just add one last point on the young offenders issue that may
be somewhat similar to the video that has now imploded across the
airwaves of America in McKinney, Texas. One study dealing with young
offenders or individual adolescents includes a report by the Journal of
Adolescent Health which demonstrates that the adolescent brain
continues to develop as young persons mature well into their twenties;
yet we begin holding our young offenders accountable as adults when
they reach the age of 18 and sometimes earlier, and we send them off to
what many describe as a criminal college. So I am hoping that we will
have legislation that can address by science the concept, if you will,
of how we treat those from 18 to 24.
This legislation allows us to build on policing and community trust.
I am looking forward to working with law enforcement agencies with the
funding and assistance to put in place the policies and protocols
dealing with training, deescalation, accreditation. That is, of course,
something that we hope to be working on with the full Judiciary
Committee.
There are some stark differences of treatment between two cities--the
city of Charleston, South Carolina, where a tragic incident occurred
and where the city responded immediately, and the city of Cleveland,
where a tragic incident occurred and where the city did not respond
immediately.
Then, this past weekend, we saw confusing footage, I think, that
dealt with teenagers at a pool party. We know that police were called.
We know that this party was, really, a party of girls who happened to
be African American, and we understand that some boys, who tend to like
to find girls, came and may have caused somewhat of a disturbance. The
reason I think it is important as we discuss this legislation is that
the bill does indicate our appreciation for law enforcement. My words
say that this will allow us to kick-start and look at issues where we
can work together to get along. But as the video indicates, we see a
scattering of young people, and we see a number of foul-mouthed
comments being made coming from one particular officer. They are quotes
I will not offer to repeat on this floor.
I submit for the Record, Mr. Speaker, an article from The Atlantic
as, I think, this is a testament to how we can work to avoid this kind
of public incident.
[From the Atlantic, June 8, 2015]
(By Yoni Appelbaum)
On Friday, a large group of teens gathered for a pool party
in the city of McKinney, Texas. Shortly thereafter, someone
called the police. And by Sunday night, as footage of the
police response spread across the internet, the McKinney
Police Department announced it was placing Eric Casebolt, the
patrol supervisor shown in the video, on administrative
leave.
It is the latest in a string of incidents of police using
apparently excessive force against African Americans that has
captured public attention. And it took place at a communal
pool--where, for more than a century, conflicts over race and
class have often surfaced.
The video shows a foul-mouthed police corporal telling the
young men he encounters to get down, and the young women to
take off, although far more obscenely. When several seated
young men appear to ask, politely, for permission to leave,
he explodes at them: ``Don't make me fucking run around here
with thirty pounds of goddamn gear in the sun because you
want to screw around out here.'' The corporal was white. The
young people he detained were, almost without exception,
black.
The video next shows him repeatedly cursing at a group of
young women, telling them to move on. Then he wrestles one to
the ground. As bystanders react in horror, and several rush
toward the young woman as if to her assistance, he draws his
sidearm. They flee. He returns to the teenager, wrestles her
back down, forces her face into the ground, and places both
knees on her back.
The McKinney police said, in a statement, that they were
called to respond to the Craig Ranch North Community Pool for
a report of ``a disturbance involving multiple juveniles at
the location, who do not live in the area or have permission
to be there, refusing to leave.'' They added that additional
calls reported fighting, and that when the crowd refused to
comply with the first responding officers, nine additional
units were deployed.
The mayor, Brian Loughmiller, described himself as
``disturbed and concerned,'' and the police chief vowed ``a
complete, and thorough, investigation.''
Like many flourishing American suburbs, McKinney has
struggled with questions of equity and diversity. The city is
among the fastest-growing in America, and its residents hail
from a wide range of backgrounds. Formal, legal segregation
is a thing of the past. Yet stark divides persist.
In 2009, McKinney was forced to settle a lawsuit alleging
that it was blocking the development of affordable housing
suitable for tenants with Section 8 vouchers in the more
affluent western portion of the city. East of Highway 75,
according to the lawsuit, McKinney is 49 percent white; to
its west, McKinney is 86 percent white. The plaintiffs
alleged that the city and its housing authority were
``willing to negotiate for and provide low-income housing
units in east McKinney, but not west McKinney, which amounts
to illegal racial steering.''
All three of the city's public pools lie to the east of
Highway 75. Craig Ranch, where the pool party took place,
lies well to its west. BuzzFeed reports that the fight broke
out when an adult woman told the teens to go back to
``Section 8 housing.''
Craig Ranch North is the oldest residential portion of a
2,200 acre master-planned community. ``The neighborhood is
made up of single-family homes,'' says the developer's
website, ``and includes a community center with two pools, a
park and a playground.'' Private developments like Craig
Ranch now routinely include pools, often paid for by dues to
homeowners' associations, and governed by their rules. But
that, in itself, represents a remarkable shift.
At their inception, communal swimming pools were public,
egalitarian spaces. Most early public pools in America aimed
more for hygiene than relaxation, open on alternate days to
men and women. In the North, at least, they served bathers
without regard for race. But in the 1920s, as public swimming
[[Page H3963]]
pools proliferated, they became sites of leisure and
recreation. Alarmed at the sight of women and men of
different races swimming together, public officials moved to
impose rigid segregation.
As African Americans fought for desegregation in the 1950s,
public pools became frequent battlefields. In Marshall,
Texas, for example, in 1957, a young man backed by the NAACP
sued to force the integration of a brand-new swimming pool.
When the judge made it clear the city would lose, citizens
voted 1,758-89 to have the city sell all of its recreational
facilities rather than integrate them. The pool was sold to a
local Lions' Club, which was able to operate it as a whites-
only private facility.
The decisions of other communities were rarely so
transparent, but the trend was unmistakable. Before 1950,
Americans went swimming as often as they went to the movies,
but they did so in public pools. There were relatively few
club pools, and private pools were markers of extraordinary
wealth. Over the next half-century, though, the number of
private in-ground pools increased from roughly 2,500 to more
than four million. The declining cost of pool construction,
improved technology, and suburbanization all played important
roles. But then, so did desegregation. As historian Jeff
Wiltse argues in his 2007 book, Contested Waters: A Social
History of Swimming Pools in America:
Although many whites abandoned desegregated public pools,
most did not stop swimming. Instead, they built private
pools, both club and residential, and swam in them. . . .
Suburbanites organized private club pools rather than fund
public pools because club pools enabled them to control the
class and racial composition of swimmers, whereas public
pools did not.
Today, that complicated legacy persists across the United
States. The public pools of mid-century--with their sandy
beaches, manicured lawns, and well-tended facilities--are
vanishingly rare. Those sorts of amenities are now generally
found behind closed gates, funded by club fees or homeowners'
dues, and not by tax dollars. And they are open to those who
can afford to live in such subdivisions, but not to their
neighbors just down the road.
Whatever took place in McKinney on Friday, it occurred
against this backdrop of the privatization of once-public
facilities, giving residents the expectation of control over
who sunbathes or doggie-paddles alongside them. Even if some
of the teens were residents, and others possessed valid guest
passes, as some insisted they did, the presence of ``multiple
juveniles . . . who do not live in the area'' clearly
triggered alarm. Several adults at the pool reportedly placed
calls to the police. And none of the adult residents shown in
the video appeared to manifest concern that the police
response had gone too far, nor that its violence was
disproportionate to the alleged offense.
To the contrary. Someone placed a sign by the pool on
Sunday afternoon. It read, simply: ``Thank you McKinney
Police for keeping us safe.''
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is not dealing with a vast group
of protesters, which, ultimately, did occur in the last 24 hours in
that area. This is dealing with youngsters. Many of us raise children
and send them to pools and various camps, and we hope they will be
well, but this is understanding the whole level of law enforcement.
Again, I believe it is time for the Congress to re-create the criminal
justice system.
Juveniles are naturally fearful of authority and lack maturity when
faced with fearful events. Running is the natural instinct of most
youth, and in this case, the youth attempted to leave when the police
approached to disperse the crowd. Then the police chased, shooting a
Taser. When the officer confronted the young girl with aggression,
other youth attempted to help her--that is, teenagers--who were also
threatened with force by the officers. These children received mixed
messages. Establishing trusting relationships between youth and police
officers is of the utmost responsibility.
What I would say is that the outrage and the expressions of a
community and parents came about because we were not talking to each
other, because actions did not track what those young people were doing
in McKinney. They were being teenagers. They were running. They may
have had the incidences of misbehavior, and, frankly, they could have
been handled in a way that the misbehavior could have been addressed.
Why now?
Again, I opened with the remarks that we now have an opportunity to
kick-start this wonderful discussion of criminal justice reform.
Wonderful? Yes, because, in America, we are a nation of civilians and
law. The civilian law enforcement is made up of those who implement
those laws, but the Constitution reigns as well. I look forward to
working with the chairman and the ranking member and all of the Members
of this body and the Judiciary Committee for a very constructive
journey on letting the American people know that we hear their pain,
that we respect those who uphold the law, and that we are going to work
constructively to do that.
I left Houston while talking to a police officer. I know he is not
listening, but let me just simply say thank you for the service that
you give. Hopefully, he will hear this and will know that we are
committed to working together in this Congress. I ask my colleagues to
support House Resolution 295.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Al Green) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver)
for their hard work on this, for coming to see me and others on our
side of the aisle about this important issue, and for working with us
on getting the language straight in this resolution in order to make
sure that we are properly encouraging this exploration while also
taking into account the issues that arise with the use of body cameras.
I want to thank the ranking member and the former chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Ms. Jackson Lee, for their work on this as well. I also
want to thank all of the staff involved.
This is an important issue, and it will help to inform us as we move
ahead on a number of issues related to criminal justice reform. I urge
my colleagues to support the resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 295.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________