[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 3, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1039-H1071]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              GEORGE FLOYD JUSTICE IN POLICING ACT OF 2021

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 179, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1280) to hold law enforcement accountable for misconduct 
in court, improve transparency through data collection, and reform 
police training and policies, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1280

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``George 
     Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

                     TITLE I--POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY

          Subtitle A--Holding Police Accountable in the Courts

Sec. 101. Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Sec. 102. Qualified immunity reform.
Sec. 103. Pattern and practice investigations.
Sec. 104. Independent investigations.

          Subtitle B--Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act

Sec. 111. Short title.
Sec. 112. Definitions.
Sec. 113. Accreditation of law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 114. Law enforcement grants.
Sec. 115. Attorney General to conduct study.
Sec. 116. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 117. National task force on law enforcement oversight.
Sec. 118. Federal data collection on law enforcement practices.

              TITLE II--POLICING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH DATA

            Subtitle A--National Police Misconduct Registry

Sec. 201. Establishment of National Police Misconduct Registry.
Sec. 202. Certification requirements for hiring of law enforcement 
              officers.

                         Subtitle B--PRIDE Act

Sec. 221. Short title.
Sec. 222. Definitions.
Sec. 223. Use of force reporting.
Sec. 224. Use of force data reporting.
Sec. 225. Compliance with reporting requirements.
Sec. 226. Federal law enforcement reporting.
Sec. 227. Authorization of appropriations.

[[Page H1040]]

           TITLE III--IMPROVING POLICE TRAINING AND POLICIES

           Subtitle A--End Racial and Religious Profiling Act

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Definitions.

                Part I--Prohibition of Racial Profiling

Sec. 311. Prohibition.
Sec. 312. Enforcement.

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

Sec. 321. Policies to eliminate racial profiling.

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

Sec. 331. Policies required for grants.
Sec. 332. Involvement of Attorney General.
Sec. 333. Data collection demonstration project.
Sec. 334. Development of best practices.
Sec. 335. Authorization of appropriations.

                        Part IV--Data Collection

Sec. 341. Attorney General to issue regulations.
Sec. 342. Publication of data.
Sec. 343. Limitations on publication of data.

    Part V--Department of Justice Regulations and Reports on Racial 
                     Profiling in the United States

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

                     Subtitle B--Additional Reforms

Sec. 361. Training on racial bias and duty to intervene.
Sec. 362. Ban on no-knock warrants in drug cases.
Sec. 363. Incentivizing banning of chokeholds and carotid holds.
Sec. 364. PEACE Act.
Sec. 365. Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act.
Sec. 366. Public safety innovation grants.

                Subtitle C--Law Enforcement Body Cameras

          Part 1--Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act

Sec. 371. Short title.
Sec. 372. Requirements for Federal law enforcement officers regarding 
              the use of body cameras.
Sec. 373.  Patrol vehicles with in-car video recording cameras.
Sec. 374. Facial recognition technology.
Sec. 375. GAO study.
Sec. 376. Regulations.
Sec. 377. Rule of construction.

                       Part 2--Police CAMERA Act

Sec. 381. Short title.
Sec. 382. Law enforcement body-worn camera requirements.

         TITLE IV--CLOSING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSENT LOOPHOLE

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Prohibition on engaging in sexual acts while acting under 
              color of law.
Sec. 403. Enactment of laws penalizing engaging in sexual acts while 
              acting under color of law.
Sec. 404. Reports to Congress.
Sec. 405. Definition.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Severability.
Sec. 502. Savings clause.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Byrne grant program.--The term ``Byrne grant program'' 
     means any grant program under subpart 1 of part E of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 
     U.S.C. 10151 et seq.), without regard to whether the funds 
     are characterized as being made available under the Edward 
     Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance 
     Programs, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants 
     Program, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 
     Program, or otherwise.
       (2) COPS grant program.--The term ``COPS grant program'' 
     means the grant program authorized under section 1701 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381).
       (3) Federal law enforcement agency.--The term ``Federal law 
     enforcement agency'' means any agency of the United States 
     authorized to engage in or supervise the prevention, 
     detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of 
     Federal criminal law.
       (4) Federal law enforcement officer.--The term ``Federal 
     law enforcement officer'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 115 of title 18, United States Code.
       (5) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``Indian tribe'' in section 901 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).
       (6) Local law enforcement officer.--The term ``local law 
     enforcement officer'' means any officer, agent, or employee 
     of a State or unit of local government authorized by law or 
     by a government agency to engage in or supervise the 
     prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of 
     criminal law.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 901 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).
       (8) Tribal law enforcement officer.--The term ``tribal law 
     enforcement officer'' means any officer, agent, or employee 
     of an Indian tribe, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     authorized by law or by a government agency to engage in or 
     supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of any 
     violation of criminal law.
       (9) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local 
     government'' has the meaning given the term in section 901 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).
       (10) Deadly force.--The term ``deadly force'' means that 
     force which a reasonable person would consider likely to 
     cause death or serious bodily harm, including--
       (A) the discharge of a firearm;
       (B) a maneuver that restricts blood or oxygen flow to the 
     brain, including chokeholds, strangleholds, neck restraints, 
     neckholds, and carotid artery restraints; and
       (C) multiple discharges of an electronic control weapon.
       (11) Use of force.--The term ``use of force'' includes--
       (A) the use of a firearm, electronic control weapon, 
     explosive device, chemical agent (such as pepper spray), 
     baton, impact projectile, blunt instrument, hand, fist, foot, 
     canine, or vehicle against an individual;
       (B) the use of a weapon, including a personal body weapon, 
     chemical agent, impact weapon, extended range impact weapon, 
     sonic weapon, sensory weapon, conducted energy device, or 
     firearm, against an individual; or
       (C) any intentional pointing of a firearm at an individual.
       (12) Less lethal force.--The term ``less lethal force'' 
     means any degree of force that is not likely to cause death 
     or serious bodily injury.
       (13) Facial recognition.--The term ``facial recognition'' 
     means an automated or semiautomated process that analyzes 
     biometric data of an individual from video footage to 
     identify or assist in identifying an individual.

                     TITLE I--POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY

          Subtitle A--Holding Police Accountable in the Courts

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

       Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``willfully'' and inserting ``knowingly or 
     recklessly'';
       (2) by striking ``, or may be sentenced to death''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of 
     this section, an act shall be considered to have resulted in 
     death if the act was a substantial factor contributing to the 
     death of the person.''.

     SEC. 102. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY REFORM.

       Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States 
     (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``It shall not be a defense or immunity in any 
     action brought under this section against a local law 
     enforcement officer (as such term is defined in section 2 of 
     the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021), or in any 
     action under any source of law against a Federal 
     investigative or law enforcement officer (as such term is 
     defined in section 2680(h) of title 28, United States Code), 
     that--
       ``(1) the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the 
     defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her 
     conduct was lawful at the time when the conduct was 
     committed; or
       ``(2) the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 
     Constitution and laws were not clearly established at the 
     time of their deprivation by the defendant, or that at such 
     time, the state of the law was otherwise such that the 
     defendant could not reasonably have been expected to know 
     whether his or her conduct was lawful.''.

     SEC. 103. PATTERN AND PRACTICE INVESTIGATIONS.

       (a) Subpoena Authority.--Section 210401 of the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 
     12601) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, by prosecutors,'' 
     after ``conduct by law enforcement officers'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (a)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Subpoena Authority.--In carrying out the authority in 
     subsection (b), the Attorney General may require by subpoena 
     the production of all information, documents, reports, 
     answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data in any 
     medium (including electronically stored information), as well 
     as any tangible thing and documentary evidence, and the 
     attendance and testimony of witnesses necessary in the 
     performance of the Attorney General under subsection (b). 
     Such a subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, 
     shall be enforceable by order of any appropriate district 
     court of the United States.
       ``(d) Civil Action by State Attorneys General.--Whenever it 
     shall appear to the attorney general of any State, or such 
     other official as a State may designate, that a violation of 
     subsection (a) has occurred within their State, the State 
     attorney general or official, in the name of the State, may 
     bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the 
     United States to obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory 
     relief to eliminate the pattern or practice. In carrying out 
     the authority in this subsection, the State attorney general 
     or official shall have the same subpoena authority as is 
     available to the Attorney General under subsection (c).

[[Page H1041]]

       ``(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to limit the authority of the Attorney General 
     under subsection (b) in any case in which a State attorney 
     general has brought a civil action under subsection (d).
       ``(f) Reporting Requirements.--On the date that is one year 
     after the enactment of the George Floyd Justice in Policing 
     Act of 2021, and annually thereafter, the Civil Rights 
     Division of the Department of Justice shall make publicly 
     available on an internet website a report on, during the 
     previous year--
       ``(1) the number of preliminary investigations of 
     violations of subsection (a) that were commenced;
       ``(2) the number of preliminary investigations of 
     violations of subsection (a) that were resolved; and
       ``(3) the status of any pending investigations of 
     violations of subsection (a).''.
       (b) Grant Program.--
       (1) Grants authorized.--The Attorney General may award a 
     grant to a State to assist the State in conducting pattern 
     and practice investigations under section 210401(d) of the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 
     U.S.C. 12601).
       (2) Application.--A State seeking a grant under paragraph 
     (1) shall submit an application in such form, at such time, 
     and containing such information as the Attorney General may 
     require.
       (3) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $100,000,000 to the Attorney General for each of fiscal years 
     2022 through 2024 to carry out this subsection.
       (c) Data on Excessive Use of Force.--Section 210402 of the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 
     U.S.C. 12602) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``The Attorney General'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Federal collection of data.--The Attorney General''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) State collection of data.--The attorney general of a 
     State may, through appropriate means, acquire data about the 
     use of excessive force by law enforcement officers and such 
     data may be used by the attorney general in conducting 
     investigations under section 210401. This data may not 
     contain any information that may reveal the identity of the 
     victim or any law enforcement officer.''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Limitation on Use of Data Acquired by the Attorney 
     General.--Data acquired under subsection (a)(1) shall be used 
     only for research or statistical purposes and may not contain 
     any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or 
     any law enforcement officer.''.
       (d) Enforcement of Pattern or Practice Relief.--Beginning 
     in the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is 
     one year after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or 
     unit of local government that receives funds under the Byrne 
     grant program or the COPS grant program during a fiscal year 
     may not make available any amount of such funds to a local 
     law enforcement agency if that local law enforcement agency 
     enters into or renews any contractual arrangement, including 
     a collective bargaining agreement with a labor organization, 
     that--
       (1) would prevent the Attorney General from seeking or 
     enforcing equitable or declaratory relief against a law 
     enforcement agency engaging in a pattern or practice of 
     unconstitutional misconduct; or
       (2) conflicts with any terms or conditions contained in a 
     consent decree.

     SEC. 104. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Independent investigation.--The term ``independent 
     investigation'' means a criminal investigation or prosecution 
     of a law enforcement officer's use of deadly force, including 
     one or more of the following:
       (i) Using an agency or civilian review board that 
     investigates and independently reviews all allegations of use 
     of deadly force made against law enforcement officers in the 
     jurisdiction.
       (ii) Assigning of the attorney general of the State in 
     which the alleged use of deadly force was committed to 
     conduct the criminal investigation and prosecution.
       (iii) Adopting a procedure under which an independent 
     prosecutor is assigned to investigate and prosecute the case, 
     including a procedure under which an automatic referral is 
     made to an independent prosecutor appointed and overseen by 
     the attorney general of the State in which the alleged use of 
     deadly force was committed.
       (iv) Adopting a procedure under which an independent 
     prosecutor is assigned to investigate and prosecute the case.
       (v) Having law enforcement agencies agree to and implement 
     memoranda of understanding with other law enforcement 
     agencies under which the other law enforcement agencies--

       (I) shall conduct the criminal investigation into the 
     alleged use of deadly force; and
       (II) upon conclusion of the criminal investigation, shall 
     file a report with the attorney general of the State 
     containing a determination regarding whether--

       (aa) the use of deadly force was appropriate; and
       (bb) any action should be taken by the attorney general of 
     the State.
       (vi) Any substantially similar procedure to ensure 
     impartiality in the investigation or prosecution.
       (B) Independent investigation of law enforcement statute.--
     The term ``independent investigation of law enforcement 
     statute'' means a statute requiring an independent 
     investigation in a criminal matter in which--
       (i) one or more of the possible defendants is a law 
     enforcement officer;
       (ii) one or more of the alleged offenses involves the law 
     enforcement officer's use of deadly force in the course of 
     carrying out that officer's duty; and
       (iii) the non-Federal law enforcement officer's use of 
     deadly force resulted in a death or injury.
       (C) Independent prosecutor.--The term ``independent 
     prosecutor'' means, with respect to a criminal investigation 
     or prosecution of a law enforcement officer's use of deadly 
     force, a prosecutor who--
       (i) does not oversee or regularly rely on the law 
     enforcement agency by which the law enforcement officer under 
     investigation is employed; and
       (ii) would not be involved in the prosecution in the 
     ordinary course of that prosecutor's duties.
       (2) Grant program.--The Attorney General may award grants 
     to eligible States and Indian Tribes to assist in 
     implementing an independent investigation of law enforcement 
     statute.
       (3) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this 
     subsection, a State or Indian Tribe shall have in effect an 
     independent investigation of law enforcement statute.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Attorney General $750,000,000 for 
     fiscal years 2022 through 2024 to carry out this subsection.
       (b) COPS Grant Program Used for Civilian Review Boards.--
     Part Q of title I of the of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 1701(b) (34 U.S.C. 10381(b))--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (22) and (23) as paragraphs 
     (23) and (24), respectively;
       (B) in paragraph (23), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``(21)'' and inserting ``(22)''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following:
       ``(22) to develop best practices for and to create civilian 
     review boards;''; and
       (2) in section 1709 (34 U.S.C. 10389), by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(8) `civilian review board' means an administrative 
     entity that investigates civilian complaints against law 
     enforcement officers and--
       ``(A) is independent and adequately funded;
       ``(B) has investigatory authority and subpoena power;
       ``(C) has representative community diversity;
       ``(D) has policy making authority;
       ``(E) provides advocates for civilian complainants;
       ``(F) may conduct hearings; and
       ``(G) conducts statistical studies on prevailing complaint 
     trends.''.

          Subtitle B--Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act

     SEC. 111. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 112. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Community-based organization.--The term ``community-
     based organization'' means a grassroots organization that 
     monitors the issue of police misconduct and that has a local 
     or national presence and membership, such as the National 
     Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 
     the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), UnidosUS, the 
     National Urban League, the National Congress of American 
     Indians, or the National Asian Pacific American Legal 
     Consortium (NAPALC).
       (2) Law enforcement accreditation organization.--The term 
     ``law enforcement accreditation organization'' means a 
     professional law enforcement organization involved in the 
     development of standards of accreditation for law enforcement 
     agencies at the national, State, regional, or Tribal level, 
     such as the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement 
     Agencies (CALEA).
       (3) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement 
     agency'' means a State, local, Indian tribal, or campus 
     public agency engaged in the prevention, detection, 
     investigation, prosecution, or adjudication of violations of 
     criminal laws.
       (4) Professional law enforcement association.--The term 
     ``professional law enforcement association'' means a law 
     enforcement membership association that works for the needs 
     of Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal law enforcement 
     agencies and with the civilian community on matters of common 
     interest, such as the Hispanic American Police Command 
     Officers Association (HAPCOA), the National Asian Pacific 
     Officers Association (NAPOA), the National Black Police 
     Association (NBPA), the National Latino Peace Officers 
     Association (NLPOA), the National Organization of Black Law 
     Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), Women in Law Enforcement, the 
     Native American Law Enforcement Association (NALEA), the 
     International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the 
     National Sheriffs' Association (NSA), the Fraternal Order of 
     Police (FOP), or the National Association of School Resource 
     Officers.

[[Page H1042]]

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

     SEC. 113. ACCREDITATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

       (a) Standards.--
       (1) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform 
     an initial analysis of existing accreditation standards and 
     methodology developed by law enforcement accreditation 
     organizations nationwide, including national, State, 
     regional, and Tribal accreditation organizations. Such an 
     analysis shall include a review of the recommendations of the 
     Final Report of the President's Taskforce on 21st Century 
     Policing, issued by the Department of Justice, in May 2015.
       (2) Development of uniform standards.--After completion of 
     the initial review and analysis under paragraph (1), the 
     Attorney General shall--
       (A) recommend, in consultation with law enforcement 
     accreditation organizations and community-based 
     organizations, the adoption of additional standards that will 
     result in greater community accountability of law enforcement 
     agencies and an increased focus on policing with a guardian 
     mentality, including standards relating to--
       (i) early warning systems and related intervention 
     programs;
       (ii) use of force procedures;
       (iii) civilian review procedures;
       (iv) traffic and pedestrian stop and search procedures;
       (v) data collection and transparency;
       (vi) administrative due process requirements;
       (vii) video monitoring technology;
       (viii) youth justice and school safety; and
       (ix) recruitment, hiring, and training; and
       (B) recommend additional areas for the development of 
     national standards for the accreditation of law enforcement 
     agencies in consultation with existing law enforcement 
     accreditation organizations, professional law enforcement 
     associations, labor organizations, community-based 
     organizations, and professional civilian oversight 
     organizations.
       (3) Continuing accreditation process.--The Attorney General 
     shall adopt policies and procedures to partner with law 
     enforcement accreditation organizations, professional law 
     enforcement associations, labor organizations, community-
     based organizations, and professional civilian oversight 
     organizations to--
       (A) continue the development of further accreditation 
     standards consistent with paragraph (2); and
       (B) encourage the pursuit of accreditation of Federal, 
     State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies by 
     certified law enforcement accreditation organizations.
       (b) Use of Funds Requirements.--Section 502(a) of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 
     U.S.C. 10153(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an 
     application, the applicant will use not less than 5 percent 
     of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to 
     assist law enforcement agencies of the applicant, including 
     campus public safety departments, gain or maintain 
     accreditation from certified law enforcement accreditation 
     organizations in accordance with section 113 of the Law 
     Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2021.''.
       (c) Eligibility for Certain Grant Funds.--The Attorney 
     General shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable 
     law, allocate Department of Justice discretionary grant 
     funding only to States or units of local government that 
     require law enforcement agencies of that State or unit of 
     local government to gain and maintain accreditation from 
     certified law enforcement accreditation organizations in 
     accordance with this section.

     SEC. 114. LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS.

       (a) Use of Funds Requirement.--Section 502(a) of title I of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 
     U.S.C. 10153(a)), as amended by section 113, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an 
     application, the applicant will use not less than 5 percent 
     of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to 
     study and implement effective management, training, 
     recruiting, hiring, and oversight standards and programs to 
     promote effective community and problem solving strategies 
     for law enforcement agencies in accordance with section 114 
     of the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2021.''.
       (b) Grant Program for Community Organizations.--The 
     Attorney General may make grants to community-based 
     organizations to study and implement--
       (1) effective management, training, recruiting, hiring, and 
     oversight standards and programs to promote effective 
     community and problem solving strategies for law enforcement 
     agencies; or
       (2) effective strategies and solutions to public safety, 
     including strategies that do not rely on Federal and local 
     law enforcement agency responses.
       (c) Use of Funds.--Grant amounts described in paragraph (8) 
     of section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153(a)), as added by 
     subsection (a) of this section, and grant amounts awarded 
     under subsection (b) shall be used to--
       (1) study management and operations standards for law 
     enforcement agencies, including standards relating to 
     administrative due process, residency requirements, 
     compensation and benefits, use of force, racial profiling, 
     early warning and intervention systems, youth justice, school 
     safety, civilian review boards or analogous procedures, or 
     research into the effectiveness of existing programs, 
     projects, or other activities designed to address misconduct; 
     and
       (2) develop pilot programs and implement effective 
     standards and programs in the areas of training, hiring and 
     recruitment, and oversight that are designed to improve 
     management and address misconduct by law enforcement 
     officers.
       (d) Components of Pilot Program.--A pilot program developed 
     under subsection (c)(2) shall include implementation of the 
     following:
       (1) Training.--The implementation of policies, practices, 
     and procedures addressing training and instruction to comply 
     with accreditation standards in the areas of--
       (A) the use of deadly force, less lethal force, and de-
     escalation tactics and techniques;
       (B) investigation of officer misconduct and practices and 
     procedures for referring to prosecuting authorities 
     allegations of officer use of excessive force or racial 
     profiling;
       (C) disproportionate contact by law enforcement with 
     minority communities;
       (D) tactical and defensive strategy;
       (E) arrests, searches, and restraint;
       (F) professional verbal communications with civilians;
       (G) interactions with--
       (i) youth;
       (ii) individuals with disabilities;
       (iii) individuals with limited English proficiency; and
       (iv) multi-cultural communities;
       (H) proper traffic, pedestrian, and other enforcement 
     stops; and
       (I) community relations and bias awareness.
       (2) Recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion of 
     diverse law enforcement officers.--Policies, procedures, and 
     practices for--
       (A) the hiring and recruitment of diverse law enforcement 
     officers who are representative of the communities they 
     serve;
       (B) the development of selection, promotion, educational, 
     background, and psychological standards that comport with 
     title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et 
     seq.); and
       (C) initiatives to encourage residency in the jurisdiction 
     served by the law enforcement agency and continuing 
     education.
       (3) Oversight.--Complaint procedures, including the 
     establishment of civilian review boards or analogous 
     procedures for jurisdictions across a range of sizes and 
     agency configurations, complaint procedures by community-
     based organizations, early warning systems and related 
     intervention programs, video monitoring technology, data 
     collection and transparency, and administrative due process 
     requirements inherent to complaint procedures for members of 
     the public and law enforcement.
       (4) Youth justice and school safety.--Uniform standards on 
     youth justice and school safety that include best practices 
     for law enforcement interaction and communication with 
     children and youth, taking into consideration adolescent 
     development and any disability, including--
       (A) the right to effective and timely notification of a 
     parent or legal guardian of any law enforcement interaction, 
     regardless of the immigration status of the individuals 
     involved; and
       (B) the creation of positive school climates by improving 
     school conditions for learning by--
       (i) eliminating school-based arrests and referrals to law 
     enforcement;
       (ii) using evidence-based preventative measures and 
     alternatives to school-based arrests and referrals to law 
     enforcement, such as restorative justice and healing 
     practices; and
       (iii) using school-wide positive behavioral interventions 
     and supports.
       (5) Victim services.--Counseling services, including 
     psychological counseling, for individuals and communities 
     impacted by law enforcement misconduct.
       (e) Technical Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may provide technical 
     assistance to States and community-based organizations in 
     furtherance of the purposes of this section.
       (2) Models for reduction of law enforcement misconduct.--
     The technical assistance provided by the Attorney General may 
     include the development of models for States and community-
     based organizations to reduce law enforcement officer 
     misconduct. Any development of such models shall be in 
     consultation with community-based organizations.
       (f) Use of Components.--The Attorney General may use any 
     component or components of the Department of Justice in 
     carrying out this section.
       (g) Applications.--An application for a grant under 
     subsection (b) shall be submitted in such form, and contain 
     such information, as the Attorney General may prescribe by 
     rule.
       (h) Performance Evaluation.--

[[Page H1043]]

       (1) Monitoring components.--
       (A) In general.--Each program, project, or activity funded 
     under this section shall contain a monitoring component, 
     which shall be developed pursuant to rules made by the 
     Attorney General.
       (B) Requirement.--Each monitoring component required under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include systematic identification and 
     collection of data about activities, accomplishments, and 
     programs throughout the duration of the program, project, or 
     activity and presentation of such data in a usable form.
       (2) Evaluation components.--
       (A) In general.--Selected grant recipients shall be 
     evaluated on the local level or as part of a national 
     evaluation, pursuant to rules made by the Attorney General.
       (B) Requirements.--An evaluation conducted under 
     subparagraph (A) may include independent audits of police 
     behavior and other assessments of individual program 
     implementations. For community-based organizations in 
     selected jurisdictions that are able to support outcome 
     evaluations, the effectiveness of funded programs, projects, 
     and activities may be required.
       (3) Periodic review and reports.--The Attorney General may 
     require a grant recipient to submit biannually to the 
     Attorney General the results of the monitoring and 
     evaluations required under paragraphs (1) and (2) and such 
     other data and information as the Attorney General determines 
     to be necessary.
       (i) Revocation or Suspension of Funding.--If the Attorney 
     General determines, as a result of monitoring under 
     subsection (h) or otherwise, that a grant recipient under the 
     Byrne grant program or under subsection (b) is not in 
     substantial compliance with the requirements of this section, 
     the Attorney General may revoke or suspend funding of that 
     grant, in whole or in part.
       (j) Civilian Review Board Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``civilian review board'' means an administrative entity 
     that investigates civilian complaints against law enforcement 
     officers and--
       (1) is independent and adequately funded;
       (2) has investigatory authority and subpoena power;
       (3) has representative community diversity;
       (4) has policy making authority;
       (5) provides advocates for civilian complainants;
       (6) may conduct hearings; and
       (7) conducts statistical studies on prevailing complaint 
     trends.
       (k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Attorney General $25,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2022 to carry out the grant program authorized 
     under subsection (b).

     SEC. 115. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT STUDY.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall conduct a 
     nationwide study of the prevalence and effect of any law, 
     rule, or procedure that allows a law enforcement officer to 
     delay the response to questions posed by a local internal 
     affairs officer, or review board on the investigative 
     integrity and prosecution of law enforcement misconduct, 
     including pre-interview warnings and termination policies.
       (2) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform 
     an initial analysis of existing State laws, rules, and 
     procedures to determine whether, at a threshold level, the 
     effect of the type of law, rule, or procedure that raises 
     material investigatory issues that could impair or hinder a 
     prompt and thorough investigation of possible misconduct, 
     including criminal conduct.
       (3) Data collection.--After completion of the initial 
     analysis under paragraph (2), and considering material 
     investigatory issues, the Attorney General shall gather 
     additional data nationwide on similar laws, rules, and 
     procedures from a representative and statistically 
     significant sample of jurisdictions, to determine whether 
     such laws, rules, and procedures raise such material 
     investigatory issues.
       (b) Reporting.--
       (1) Initial analysis.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General 
     shall--
       (A) submit to Congress a report containing the results of 
     the initial analysis conducted under subsection (a)(2);
       (B) make the report submitted under subparagraph (A) 
     available to the public; and
       (C) identify the jurisdictions for which the study 
     described in subsection (a)(3) is to be conducted.
       (2) Data collected.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall 
     submit to Congress a report containing the results of the 
     data collected under this section and publish the report in 
     the Federal Register.

     SEC. 116. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2022, in addition to any other sums authorized to be 
     appropriated--
       (1) $25,000,000 for additional expenses relating to the 
     enforcement of section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12601), criminal 
     enforcement under sections 241 and 242 of title 18, United 
     States Code, and administrative enforcement by the Department 
     of Justice of such sections, including compliance with 
     consent decrees or judgments entered into under such section 
     210401; and
       (2) $3,300,000 for additional expenses related to conflict 
     resolution by the Department of Justice's Community Relations 
     Service.

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

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Justice a task force to be known as the Task 
     Force on Law Enforcement Oversight (hereinafter in this 
     section referred to as the ``Task Force'').
       (b) Composition.--The Task Force shall be composed of 
     individuals appointed by the Attorney General, who shall 
     appoint not less than 1 individual from each of the 
     following:
       (1) The Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights 
     Division.
       (2) The Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division.
       (3) The Federal Coordination and Compliance Section of the 
     Civil Rights Division.
       (4) The Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights 
     Division.
       (5) The Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights 
     Division.
       (6) The Office of Justice Programs.
       (7) The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
     (COPS).
       (8) The Corruption/Civil Rights Section of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation.
       (9) The Community Relations Service.
       (10) The Office of Tribal Justice.
       (11) The unit within the Department of Justice assigned as 
     a liaison for civilian review boards.
       (c) Powers and Duties.--The Task Force shall consult with 
     professional law enforcement associations, labor 
     organizations, and community-based organizations to 
     coordinate the process of the detection and referral of 
     complaints regarding incidents of alleged law enforcement 
     misconduct.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each fiscal year to carry 
     out this section.

     SEC. 118. FEDERAL DATA COLLECTION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   PRACTICES.

       (a) Agencies To Report.--Each Federal, State, Tribal, and 
     local law enforcement agency shall report data of the 
     practices enumerated in subsection (c) of that agency to the 
     Attorney General.
       (b) Breakdown of Information by Race, Ethnicity, and 
     Gender.--For each practice enumerated in subsection (c), the 
     reporting law enforcement agency shall provide a breakdown of 
     the numbers of incidents of that practice by race, ethnicity, 
     age, and gender of the officers of the agency and of members 
     of the public involved in the practice.
       (c) Practices To Be Reported on.--The practices to be 
     reported on are the following:
       (1) Traffic violation stops.
       (2) Pedestrian stops.
       (3) Frisk and body searches.
       (4) Instances where law enforcement officers used deadly 
     force, including--
       (A) a description of when and where deadly force was used, 
     and whether it resulted in death;
       (B) a description of deadly force directed against an 
     officer and whether it resulted in injury or death; and
       (C) the law enforcement agency's justification for use of 
     deadly force, if the agency determines it was justified.
       (d) Retention of Data.--Each law enforcement agency 
     required to report data under this section shall maintain 
     records relating to any matter reported for not less than 4 
     years after those records are created.
       (e) Penalty for States Failing To Report as Required.--
       (1) In general.--For any fiscal year, a State shall not 
     receive any amount that would otherwise be allocated to that 
     State under section 505(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10156(a)), or 
     any amount from any other law enforcement assistance program 
     of the Department of Justice, unless the State has ensured, 
     to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the State 
     and each local law enforcement agency of the State is in 
     substantial compliance with the requirements of this section.
       (2) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated by reason of this 
     subsection shall be reallocated to States not disqualified by 
     failure to comply with this section.
       (f) Regulations.--The Attorney General shall prescribe 
     regulations to carry out this section.

              TITLE II--POLICING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH DATA

            Subtitle A--National Police Misconduct Registry

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL POLICE MISCONDUCT 
                   REGISTRY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a 
     National Police Misconduct Registry to be compiled and 
     maintained by the Department of Justice.
       (b) Contents of Registry.--The Registry required to be 
     established under subsection (a) shall contain the following 
     data with respect to all Federal and local law enforcement 
     officers:
       (1) Each complaint filed against a law enforcement officer, 
     aggregated by--
       (A) complaints that were found to be credible or that 
     resulted in disciplinary action against the law enforcement 
     officer, disaggregated by whether the complaint involved a 
     use of force or racial profiling (as such term is defined in 
     section 302);
       (B) complaints that are pending review, disaggregated by 
     whether the complaint involved a use of force or racial 
     profiling; and

[[Page H1044]]

       (C) complaints for which the law enforcement officer was 
     exonerated or that were determined to be unfounded or not 
     sustained, disaggregated by whether the complaint involved a 
     use of force or racial profiling.
       (2) Discipline records, disaggregated by whether the 
     complaint involved a use of force or racial profiling.
       (3) Termination records, the reason for each termination, 
     disaggregated by whether the complaint involved a use of 
     force or racial profiling.
       (4) Records of certification in accordance with section 
     202.
       (5) Records of lawsuits against law enforcement officers 
     and settlements of such lawsuits.
       (6) Instances where a law enforcement officer resigns or 
     retires while under active investigation related to the use 
     of force.
       (c) Federal Agency Reporting Requirements.--Not later than 
     1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 6 
     months thereafter, the head of each Federal law enforcement 
     agency shall submit to the Attorney General the information 
     described in subsection (b).
       (d) State and Local Law Enforcement Agency Reporting 
     Requirements.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that begins 
     after the date that is one year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act and each fiscal year thereafter in which a State 
     receives funds under the Byrne grant program, the State 
     shall, once every 180 days, submit to the Attorney General 
     the information described in subsection (b) for the State and 
     each local law enforcement agency within the State.
       (e) Public Availability of Registry.--
       (1) In general.--In establishing the Registry required 
     under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall make the 
     Registry available to the public on an internet website of 
     the Attorney General in a manner that allows members of the 
     public to search for an individual law enforcement officer's 
     records of misconduct, as described in subsection (b), 
     involving a use of force or racial profiling.
       (2) Privacy protections.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to supersede the requirements or limitations 
     under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Privacy Act of 1974'').

     SEC. 202. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HIRING OF LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) In General.-- Beginning in the first fiscal year that 
     begins after the date that is one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, a State or unit of local government, 
     other than an Indian Tribe, may not receive funds under the 
     Byrne grant program for that fiscal year if, on the day 
     before the first day of the fiscal year, the State or unit of 
     local government has not--
       (1) submitted to the Attorney General evidence that the 
     State or unit of local government has a certification and 
     decertification program for purposes of employment as a law 
     enforcement officer in that State or unit of local government 
     that is consistent with the rules made under subsection (c); 
     and
       (2) submitted to the National Police Misconduct Registry 
     established under section 201 records demonstrating that all 
     law enforcement officers of the State or unit of local 
     government have completed all State certification 
     requirements during the 1-year period preceding the fiscal 
     year.
       (b) Availability of Information.--The Attorney General 
     shall make available to law enforcement agencies all 
     information in the registry under section 201 for purposes of 
     compliance with the certification and decertification 
     programs described in subsection (a)(1) and considering 
     applications for employment.
       (c) Rules.--The Attorney General shall make rules to carry 
     out this section and section 201, including uniform reporting 
     standards.

                         Subtitle B--PRIDE Act

     SEC. 221. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 222. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 8101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801).
       (2) Local law enforcement officer.--The term ``local law 
     enforcement officer'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 2, and includes a school resource officer.
       (3) School.--The term ``school'' means an elementary school 
     or secondary school (as those terms are defined in section 
     8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 7801)).
       (4) School resource officer.--The term ``school resource 
     officer'' means a sworn law enforcement officer who is--
       (A) assigned by the employing law enforcement agency to a 
     local educational agency or school;
       (B) contracting with a local educational agency or school; 
     or
       (C) employed by a local educational agency or school.

     SEC. 223. USE OF FORCE REPORTING.

       (a) Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that 
     begins after the date that is one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and each fiscal year thereafter in 
     which a State or Indian Tribe receives funds under a Byrne 
     grant program, the State or Indian Tribe shall--
       (A) report to the Attorney General, on a quarterly basis 
     and pursuant to guidelines established by the Attorney 
     General, information regarding--
       (i) any incident involving the use of deadly force against 
     a civilian by--

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

       (ii) any incident involving the shooting of a local law 
     enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement officer 
     described in clause (i) by a civilian;
       (iii) any incident involving the death or arrest of a local 
     law enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement officer;
       (iv) any incident during which use of force by or against a 
     local law enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement 
     officer described in clause (i) occurs, which is not reported 
     under clause (i), (ii), or (iii);
       (v) deaths in custody; and
       (vi) uses of force in arrests and booking;
       (B) establish a system and a set of policies to ensure that 
     all use of force incidents are reported by local law 
     enforcement officers or tribal law enforcement officers; and
       (C) submit to the Attorney General a plan for the 
     collection of data required to be reported under this 
     section, including any modifications to a previously 
     submitted data collection plan.
       (2) Report information required.--
       (A) In general.--The report required under paragraph (1)(A) 
     shall contain information that includes, at a minimum--
       (i) the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, 
     disability, English language proficiency, and housing status 
     of each civilian against whom a local law enforcement officer 
     or tribal law enforcement officer used force;
       (ii) the date, time, and location, including whether it was 
     on school grounds, and the zip code, of the incident and 
     whether the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred 
     allows for the open-carry or concealed-carry of a firearm;
       (iii) whether the civilian was armed, and, if so, the type 
     of weapon the civilian had;
       (iv) the type of force used against the officer, the 
     civilian, or both, including the types of weapons used;
       (v) the reason force was used;
       (vi) a description of any injuries sustained as a result of 
     the incident;
       (vii) the number of officers involved in the incident;
       (viii) the number of civilians involved in the incident; 
     and
       (ix) a brief description regarding the circumstances 
     surrounding the incident, which shall include information 
     on--

       (I) the type of force used by all involved persons;
       (II) the legitimate police objective necessitating the use 
     of force;
       (III) the resistance encountered by each local law 
     enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement officer 
     involved in the incident;
       (IV) the efforts by local law enforcement officers or 
     tribal law enforcement officers to--

       (aa) de-escalate the situation in order to avoid the use of 
     force; or
       (bb) minimize the level of force used; and

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

       (B) Incidents reported under death in custody reporting 
     act.--A State or Indian Tribe is not required to include in a 
     report under subsection (a)(1) an incident reported by the 
     State or Indian Tribe in accordance with section 20104(a)(2) 
     of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
     (34 U.S.C. 12104(a)(2)).
       (C) Retention of data.--Each law enforcement agency 
     required to report data under this section shall maintain 
     records relating to any matter so reportable for not less 
     than 4 years after those records are created.
       (3) Audit of use-of-force reporting.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year 
     thereafter, each State or Indian Tribe described in paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       (A) conduct an audit of the use of force incident reporting 
     system required to be established under paragraph (1)(B); and
       (B) submit a report to the Attorney General on the audit 
     conducted under subparagraph (A).
       (4) Compliance procedure.--Prior to submitting a report 
     under paragraph (1)(A), the State or Indian Tribe submitting 
     such report shall compare the information compiled to be 
     reported pursuant to clause (i) of paragraph (1)(A) to 
     publicly available sources, and shall revise such report to 
     include any incident determined to be missing from the report 
     based on such comparison. Failure to comply with the 
     procedures described in the previous sentence shall be 
     considered a failure to comply with the requirements of this 
     section.
       (b) Ineligibility for Funds.--
       (1) In general.--For any fiscal year in which a State or 
     Indian Tribe fails to comply with this section, the State or 
     Indian Tribe, at the discretion of the Attorney General, 
     shall be subject to not more than a 10-percent reduction of 
     the funds that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal 
     year to the State or Indian Tribe under a Byrne grant 
     program.
       (2) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated under a Byrne 
     grant program in accordance with paragraph (1) to a State for 
     failure to comply with this section shall be reallocated 
     under the Byrne grant program to States

[[Page H1045]]

     that have not failed to comply with this section.
       (3) Information regarding school resource officers.--The 
     State or Indian Tribe shall ensure that all schools and local 
     educational agencies within the jurisdiction of the State or 
     Indian Tribe provide the State or Indian Tribe with the 
     information needed regarding school resource officers to 
     comply with this section.
       (c) Public Availability of Data.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney 
     General shall publish, and make available to the public, a 
     report containing the data reported to the Attorney General 
     under this section.
       (2) Privacy protections.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to supersede the requirements or limitations 
     under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Privacy Act of 1974'').
       (d) Guidance.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in coordination 
     with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     shall issue guidance on best practices relating to 
     establishing standard data collection systems that capture 
     the information required to be reported under subsection 
     (a)(2), which shall include standard and consistent 
     definitions for terms.

     SEC. 224. USE OF FORCE DATA REPORTING.

       (a) Technical Assistance Grants Authorized.--The Attorney 
     General may make grants to eligible law enforcement agencies 
     to be used for the activities described in subsection (c).
       (b) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section a law enforcement agency shall--
       (1) be a tribal law enforcement agency or be located in a 
     State that receives funds under a Byrne grant program;
       (2) employ not more that 100 local or tribal law 
     enforcement officers;
       (3) demonstrate that the use of force policy for local law 
     enforcement officers or tribal law enforcement officers 
     employed by the law enforcement agency is publicly available; 
     and
       (4) establish and maintain a complaint system that--
       (A) may be used by members of the public to report 
     incidents of use of force to the law enforcement agency;
       (B) makes all information collected publicly searchable and 
     available; and
       (C) provides information on the status of an investigation 
     related to a use of force complaint.
       (c) Activities Described.--A grant made under this section 
     may be used by a law enforcement agency for--
       (1) the cost of assisting the State or Indian Tribe in 
     which the law enforcement agency is located in complying with 
     the reporting requirements described in section 223;
       (2) the cost of establishing necessary systems required to 
     investigate and report incidents as required under subsection 
     (b)(4);
       (3) public awareness campaigns designed to gain information 
     from the public on use of force by or against local and 
     tribal law enforcement officers, including shootings, which 
     may include tip lines, hotlines, and public service 
     announcements; and
       (4) use of force training for law enforcement agencies and 
     personnel, including training on de-escalation, implicit 
     bias, crisis intervention techniques, and adolescent 
     development.

     SEC. 225. COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney 
     General shall conduct an audit and review of the information 
     provided under this subtitle to determine whether each State 
     or Indian Tribe described in section 223(a)(1) is in 
     compliance with the requirements of this subtitle.
       (b) Consistency in Data Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--Any data reported under this subtitle 
     shall be collected and reported--
       (A) in a manner consistent with existing programs of the 
     Department of Justice that collect data on local law 
     enforcement officer encounters with civilians; and
       (B) in a manner consistent with civil rights laws for 
     distribution of information to the public.
       (2) Guidelines.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall--
       (A) issue guidelines on the reporting requirement under 
     section 223; and
       (B) seek public comment before finalizing the guidelines 
     required under subparagraph (A).

     SEC. 226. FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORTING.

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

     SEC. 227. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

           TITLE III--IMPROVING POLICE TRAINING AND POLICIES

           Subtitle A--End Racial and Religious Profiling Act

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Covered program.--The term ``covered program'' means 
     any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds 
     made available under--
       (A) a Byrne grant program; and
       (B) the COPS grant program, except that no program, 
     project, or other activity specified in section 1701(b)(13) 
     of part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381 et seq.) shall be a 
     covered program under this paragraph.
       (2) Governmental body.--The term ``governmental body'' 
     means any department, agency, special purpose district, or 
     other instrumentality of Federal, State, local, or Indian 
     Tribal government.
       (3) Hit rate.--The term ``hit rate'' means the percentage 
     of stops and searches in which a law enforcement agent finds 
     drugs, a gun, or something else that leads to an arrest. The 
     hit rate is calculated by dividing the total number of 
     searches by the number of searches that yield contraband. The 
     hit rate is complementary to the rate of false stops.
       (4) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement 
     agency'' means any Federal, State, or local public agency 
     engaged in the prevention, detection, or investigation of 
     violations of criminal, immigration, or customs laws.
       (5) Law enforcement agent.--The term ``law enforcement 
     agent'' means any Federal, State, or local official 
     responsible for enforcing criminal, immigration, or customs 
     laws, including police officers and other agents of a law 
     enforcement agency.
       (6) Racial profiling.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``racial profiling'' means the 
     practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any 
     degree, on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national 
     origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual 
     orientation in selecting which individual to subject to 
     routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in 
     deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement 
     activity following the initial investigatory procedure, 
     except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the 
     locality and timeframe, that links a person with a particular 
     characteristic described in this paragraph to an identified 
     criminal incident or scheme.
       (B) Exception.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a tribal 
     law enforcement officer exercising law enforcement authority 
     within Indian country, as that term is defined in section 
     1151 of title 18, United States Code, is not considered to be 
     racial profiling with respect to making key jurisdictional 
     determinations that are necessarily tied to reliance on 
     actual or perceived race, ethnicity, or tribal affiliation.
       (7) Routine or spontaneous investigatory activities.--The 
     term ``routine or spontaneous investigatory activities'' 
     means the following activities by a law enforcement agent:
       (A) Interviews.
       (B) Traffic stops.
       (C) Pedestrian stops.
       (D) Frisks and other types of body searches.
       (E) Consensual or nonconsensual searches of the persons, 
     property, or possessions (including vehicles) of individuals 
     using any form of public or private transportation, including 
     motorists and pedestrians.
       (F) Data collection and analysis, assessments, and 
     predicated investigations.
       (G) Inspections and interviews of entrants into the United 
     States that are more extensive than those customarily carried 
     out.
       (H) Immigration-related workplace investigations.
       (I) Such other types of law enforcement encounters compiled 
     for or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the 
     Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics.
       (8) Reasonable request.--The term ``reasonable request'' 
     means all requests for information, except for those that--
       (A) are immaterial to the investigation;
       (B) would result in the unnecessary disclosure of personal 
     information; or
       (C) would place a severe burden on the resources of the law 
     enforcement agency given its size.

                PART I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING

     SEC. 311. PROHIBITION.

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

     SEC. 312. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Remedy.--The United States, or an individual injured by 
     racial profiling, may enforce this part in a civil action for 
     declaratory or injunctive relief, filed either in a State 
     court of general jurisdiction or in a district court of the 
     United States.
       (b) Parties.--In any action brought under this part, relief 
     may be obtained against--
       (1) any governmental body that employed any law enforcement 
     agent who engaged in racial profiling;
       (2) any agent of such body who engaged in racial profiling; 
     and
       (3) any person with supervisory authority over such agent.
       (c) Nature of Proof.--Proof that the routine or spontaneous 
     investigatory activities of law enforcement agents in a 
     jurisdiction have had a disparate impact on individuals with 
     a particular characteristic described in section 302(6) shall 
     constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of this part.

[[Page H1046]]

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

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

     SEC. 321. POLICIES TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING.

       (a) In General.--Federal law enforcement agencies shall--
       (1) maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to 
     eliminate racial profiling; and
       (2) cease existing practices that permit racial profiling.
       (b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in 
     subsection (a)(1) shall include--
       (1) a prohibition on racial profiling;
       (2) training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal 
     law enforcement training;
       (3) the collection of data in accordance with the 
     regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 341;
       (4) procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding 
     meaningfully to complaints alleging racial profiling by law 
     enforcement agents; and
       (5) any other policies and procedures the Attorney General 
     determines to be necessary to eliminate racial profiling by 
     Federal law enforcement agencies.

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

     SEC. 331. POLICIES REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--An application by a State or a unit of 
     local government for funding under a covered program shall 
     include a certification that such State, unit of local 
     government, and any law enforcement agency to which it will 
     distribute funds--
       (1) maintains adequate policies and procedures designed to 
     eliminate racial profiling; and
       (2) has eliminated any existing practices that permit or 
     encourage racial profiling.
       (b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in 
     subsection (a)(1) shall include--
       (1) a prohibition on racial profiling;
       (2) training on racial profiling issues as part of law 
     enforcement training;
       (3) the collection of data in accordance with the 
     regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 341; 
     and
       (4) participation in an administrative complaint procedure 
     or independent audit program that meets the requirements of 
     section 332.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 12 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 332. INVOLVEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       (a) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and in consultation with stakeholders, 
     including Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies 
     and community, professional, research, and civil rights 
     organizations, the Attorney General shall issue regulations 
     for the operation of administrative complaint procedures and 
     independent audit programs to ensure that such procedures and 
     programs provide an appropriate response to allegations of 
     racial profiling by law enforcement agents or agencies.
       (2) Guidelines.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1) 
     shall contain guidelines that ensure the fairness, 
     effectiveness, and independence of the administrative 
     complaint procedures and independent auditor programs.
       (b) Noncompliance.--If the Attorney General determines that 
     the recipient of a grant from any covered program is not in 
     compliance with the requirements of section 331 or the 
     regulations issued under subsection (a), the Attorney General 
     shall withhold, in whole or in part (at the discretion of the 
     Attorney General), funds for one or more grants to the 
     recipient under the covered program, until the recipient 
     establishes compliance.
       (c) Private Parties.--The Attorney General shall provide 
     notice and an opportunity for private parties to present 
     evidence to the Attorney General that a recipient of a grant 
     from any covered program is not in compliance with the 
     requirements of this part.

     SEC. 333. DATA COLLECTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) Technical Assistance Grants for Data Collection.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may, through 
     competitive grants or contracts, carry out a 2-year 
     demonstration project for the purpose of developing and 
     implementing data collection programs on the hit rates for 
     stops and searches by law enforcement agencies. The data 
     collected shall be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national 
     origin, gender, and religion.
       (2) Number of grants.--The Attorney General shall provide 
     not more than 5 grants or contracts under this section.
       (3) Eligible grantees.--Grants or contracts under this 
     section shall be awarded to law enforcement agencies that 
     serve communities where there is a significant concentration 
     of racial or ethnic minorities and that are not already 
     collecting data voluntarily.
       (b) Required Activities.--Activities carried out with a 
     grant under this section shall include--
       (1) developing a data collection tool and reporting the 
     compiled data to the Attorney General; and
       (2) training of law enforcement personnel on data 
     collection, particularly for data collection on hit rates for 
     stops and searches.
       (c) Evaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall enter into 
     a contract with an institution of higher education (as 
     defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001)) to analyze the data collected by each of 
     the grantees funded under this section.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out activities under this 
     section--
       (1) $5,000,000, over a 2-year period, to carry out the 
     demonstration program under subsection (a); and
       (2) $500,000 to carry out the evaluation under subsection 
     (c).

     SEC. 334. DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES.

       (a) Use of Funds Requirement.--Section 502(a) of title I of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 
     U.S.C. 10153(a)), as amended by sections 113 and 114, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an 
     application, the applicant will use not less than 10 percent 
     of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to 
     develop and implement best practice devices and systems to 
     eliminate racial profiling in accordance with section 334 of 
     the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2021.''.
       (b) Development of Best Practices.--Grant amounts described 
     in paragraph (9) of section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 
     10153(a)), as added by subsection (a) of this section, shall 
     be for programs that include the following:
       (1) The development and implementation of training to 
     prevent racial profiling and to encourage more respectful 
     interaction with the public.
       (2) The acquisition and use of technology to facilitate the 
     accurate collection and analysis of data.
       (3) The development and acquisition of feedback systems and 
     technologies that identify law enforcement agents or units of 
     agents engaged in, or at risk of engaging in, racial 
     profiling or other misconduct.
       (4) The establishment and maintenance of an administrative 
     complaint procedure or independent auditor program.

     SEC. 335. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

                        PART IV--DATA COLLECTION

     SEC. 341. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS.

       (a) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation 
     with stakeholders, including Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement agencies and community, professional, research, 
     and civil rights organizations, shall issue regulations for 
     the collection and compilation of data under sections 321 and 
     331.
       (b) Requirements.--The regulations issued under subsection 
     (a) shall--
       (1) provide for the collection of data on all routine and 
     spontaneous investigatory activities;
       (2) provide that the data collected shall--
       (A) be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national origin, 
     gender, disability, and religion;
       (B) include the date, time, and location of such 
     investigatory activities;
       (C) include detail sufficient to permit an analysis of 
     whether a law enforcement agency is engaging in racial 
     profiling; and
       (D) not include personally identifiable information;
       (3) provide that a standardized form shall be made 
     available to law enforcement agencies for the submission of 
     collected data to the Department of Justice;
       (4) provide that law enforcement agencies shall compile 
     data on the standardized form made available under paragraph 
     (3), and submit the form to the Civil Rights Division and the 
     Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics;
       (5) provide that law enforcement agencies shall maintain 
     all data collected under this subtitle for not less than 4 
     years;
       (6) include guidelines for setting comparative benchmarks, 
     consistent with best practices, against which collected data 
     shall be measured;
       (7) provide that the Department of Justice Bureau of 
     Justice Statistics shall--
       (A) analyze the data for any statistically significant 
     disparities, including--
       (i) disparities in the percentage of drivers or pedestrians 
     stopped relative to the proportion of the population passing 
     through the neighborhood;
       (ii) disparities in the hit rate; and
       (iii) disparities in the frequency of searches performed on 
     racial or ethnic minority drivers and the frequency of 
     searches performed on nonminority drivers; and
       (B) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and annually thereafter--
       (i) prepare a report regarding the findings of the analysis 
     conducted under subparagraph (A);

[[Page H1047]]

       (ii) provide such report to Congress; and
       (iii) make such report available to the public, including 
     on a website of the Department of Justice, and in accordance 
     with accessibility standards under the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.); and
       (8) protect the privacy of individuals whose data is 
     collected by--
       (A) limiting the use of the data collected under this 
     subtitle to the purposes set forth in this subtitle;
       (B) except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, limiting 
     access to the data collected under this subtitle to those 
     Federal, State, or local employees or agents who require such 
     access in order to fulfill the purposes for the data set 
     forth in this subtitle;
       (C) requiring contractors or other nongovernmental agents 
     who are permitted access to the data collected under this 
     subtitle to sign use agreements incorporating the use and 
     disclosure restrictions set forth in subparagraph (A); and
       (D) requiring the maintenance of adequate security measures 
     to prevent unauthorized access to the data collected under 
     this subtitle.

     SEC. 342. PUBLICATION OF DATA.

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

     SEC. 343. LIMITATIONS ON PUBLICATION OF DATA.

       The name or identifying information of a law enforcement 
     agent, complainant, or any other individual involved in any 
     activity for which data is collected and compiled under this 
     subtitle shall not be--
       (1) released to the public;
       (2) disclosed to any person, except for--
       (A) such disclosures as are necessary to comply with this 
     subtitle;
       (B) disclosures of information regarding a particular 
     person to that person; or
       (C) disclosures pursuant to litigation; or
       (3) subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of 
     Information Act), except for disclosures of information 
     regarding a particular person to that person.

    PART V--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS ON RACIAL 
                     PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES

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

       (a) Regulations.--In addition to the regulations required 
     under sections 333 and 341, the Attorney General shall issue 
     such other regulations as the Attorney General determines are 
     necessary to implement this subtitle.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to Congress a report on racial profiling 
     by law enforcement agencies.
       (2) Scope.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) a summary of data collected under sections 321(b)(3) 
     and 331(b)(3) and from any other reliable source of 
     information regarding racial profiling in the United States;
       (B) a discussion of the findings in the most recent report 
     prepared by the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics under section 341(b)(7);
       (C) the status of the adoption and implementation of 
     policies and procedures by Federal law enforcement agencies 
     under section 321 and by the State and local law enforcement 
     agencies under sections 331 and 332; and
       (D) a description of any other policies and procedures that 
     the Attorney General believes would facilitate the 
     elimination of racial profiling.

                     Subtitle B--Additional Reforms

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

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish--
       (1) a training program for law enforcement officers to 
     cover racial profiling, implicit bias, and procedural 
     justice; and
       (2) a clear duty for Federal law enforcement officers to 
     intervene in cases where another law enforcement officer is 
     using excessive force against a civilian, and establish a 
     training program that covers the duty to intervene.
       (b) Mandatory Training for Federal Law Enforcement 
     Officers.--The head of each Federal law enforcement agency 
     shall require each Federal law enforcement officer employed 
     by the agency to complete the training programs established 
     under subsection (a).
       (c) Limitation on Eligibility for Funds.--Beginning in the 
     first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of 
     local government may not receive funds under the Byrne grant 
     program for a fiscal year if, on the day before the first day 
     of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local government 
     does not require each law enforcement officer in the State or 
     unit of local government to complete the training programs 
     established under subsection (a).
       (d) Grants To Train Law Enforcement Officers on Use of 
     Force.--Section 501(a)(1) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10152(a)(1)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) Training programs for law enforcement officers, 
     including training programs on use of force and a duty to 
     intervene.''.

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

       (a) Ban on Federal Warrants in Drug Cases.--Section 509 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 879) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``A search warrant 
     authorized under this section shall require that a law 
     enforcement officer execute the search warrant only after 
     providing notice of his or her authority and purpose.''.
       (b) Limitation on Eligibility for Funds.--Beginning in the 
     first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of 
     local government may not receive funds under the COPS grant 
     program for a fiscal year if, on the day before the first day 
     of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local government 
     does not have in effect a law that prohibits the issuance of 
     a no-knock warrant in a drug case.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``no-knock 
     warrant'' means a warrant that allows a law enforcement 
     officer to enter a property without requiring the law 
     enforcement officer to announce the presence of the law 
     enforcement officer or the intention of the law enforcement 
     officer to enter the property.

     SEC. 363. INCENTIVIZING BANNING OF CHOKEHOLDS AND CAROTID 
                   HOLDS.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``chokehold or 
     carotid hold'' means the application of any pressure to the 
     throat or windpipe, the use of maneuvers that restrict blood 
     or oxygen flow to the brain, or carotid artery restraints 
     that prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air of 
     an individual.
       (b) Limitation on Eligibility for Funds.--Beginning in the 
     first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of 
     local government may not receive funds under the Byrne grant 
     program or the COPS grant program for a fiscal year if, on 
     the day before the first day of the fiscal year, the State or 
     unit of local government does not have in effect a law that 
     prohibits law enforcement officers in the State or unit of 
     local government from using a chokehold or carotid hold.
       (c) Chokeholds as Civil Rights Violations.--
       (1) Short title.--This subsection may be cited as the 
     ``Eric Garner Excessive Use of Force Prevention Act''.
       (2) Chokeholds as civil rights violations.--Section 242 of 
     title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 101, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``For the 
     purposes of this section, the application of any pressure to 
     the throat or windpipe, use of maneuvers that restrict blood 
     or oxygen flow to the brain, or carotid artery restraints 
     which prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air is 
     a punishment, pain, or penalty.''.

     SEC. 364. PEACE ACT.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Police 
     Exercising Absolute Care With Everyone Act of 2021'' or the 
     ``PEACE Act of 2021''.
       (b) Use of Force by Federal Law Enforcement Officers.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Deescalation tactics and techniques.--The term 
     ``deescalation tactics and techniques'' means proactive 
     actions and approaches used by a Federal law enforcement 
     officer to stabilize the situation so that more time, 
     options, and resources are available to gain a person's 
     voluntary compliance and reduce or eliminate the need to use 
     force, including verbal persuasion, warnings, tactical 
     techniques, slowing down the pace of an incident, waiting out 
     a subject, creating distance between the officer and the 
     threat, and requesting additional resources to resolve the 
     incident.
       (B) Necessary.--The term ``necessary'' means that another 
     reasonable Federal law enforcement officer would objectively 
     conclude, under the totality of the circumstances, that there 
     was no reasonable alternative to the use of force.
       (C) Reasonable alternatives.--
       (i) In general.--The term ``reasonable alternatives'' means 
     tactics and methods used by a Federal law enforcement officer 
     to effectuate an arrest that do not unreasonably increase the 
     risk posed to the law enforcement officer or another person, 
     including verbal communication, distance, warnings, 
     deescalation tactics and techniques, tactical repositioning, 
     and other tactics and techniques intended to stabilize the 
     situation and reduce the immediacy of the risk so that more 
     time, options, and resources can be called upon to resolve 
     the situation without the use of force.
       (ii) Deadly force.--With respect to the use of deadly 
     force, the term ``reasonable alternatives'' includes the use 
     of less lethal force.
       (D) Totality of the circumstances.--The term ``totality of 
     the circumstances'' means all credible facts known to the 
     Federal law enforcement officer leading up to and at the time 
     of the use of force, including the actions of the person 
     against whom the Federal law enforcement officer uses such 
     force and the actions of the Federal law enforcement officer.
       (2) Prohibition on less lethal force.--A Federal law 
     enforcement officer may not use any less lethal force 
     unless--

[[Page H1048]]

       (A) the form of less lethal force used is necessary and 
     proportional in order to effectuate an arrest of a person who 
     the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a 
     criminal offense; and
       (B) reasonable alternatives to the use of the form of less 
     lethal force have been exhausted.
       (3) Prohibition on deadly use of force.--A Federal law 
     enforcement officer may not use deadly force against a person 
     unless--
       (A) the form of deadly force used is necessary, as a last 
     resort, to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or 
     death to the officer or another person;
       (B) the use of the form of deadly force creates no 
     substantial risk of injury to a third person; and
       (C) reasonable alternatives to the use of the form of 
     deadly force have been exhausted.
       (4) Requirement to give verbal warning.--When feasible, 
     prior to using force against a person, a Federal law 
     enforcement officer shall identify himself or herself as a 
     Federal law enforcement officer, and issue a verbal warning 
     to the person that the Federal law enforcement officer seeks 
     to apprehend, which shall--
       (A) include a request that the person surrender to the law 
     enforcement officer; and
       (B) notify the person that the law enforcement officer will 
     use force against the person if the person resists arrest or 
     flees.
       (5) Guidance on use of force.--Not later than 120 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney 
     General, in consultation with impacted persons, communities, 
     and organizations, including representatives of civil and 
     human rights organizations, victims of police use of force, 
     and representatives of law enforcement associations, shall 
     provide guidance to Federal law enforcement agencies on--
       (A) the types of less lethal force and deadly force that 
     are prohibited under paragraphs (2) and (3); and
       (B) how a Federal law enforcement officer can--
       (i) assess whether the use of force is appropriate and 
     necessary; and
       (ii) use the least amount of force when interacting with--

       (I) pregnant individuals;
       (II) children and youth under 21 years of age;
       (III) elderly persons;
       (IV) persons with mental, behavioral, or physical 
     disabilities or impairments;
       (V) persons experiencing perceptual or cognitive 
     impairments due to use of alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 
     or other drugs;
       (VI) persons suffering from a serious medical condition; 
     and
       (VII) persons with limited English proficiency.

       (6) Training.--The Attorney General shall provide training 
     to Federal law enforcement officers on interacting people 
     described in subclauses (I) through (VII) of paragraph 
     (5)(B)(ii).
       (7) Limitation on justification defense.--
       (A) In general.--Chapter 51 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

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

       ``(a) In General.--It is not a defense to an offense under 
     section 1111 or 1112 that the use of less lethal force or 
     deadly force by a Federal law enforcement officer was 
     justified if--
       ``(1) that officer's use of use of such force was 
     inconsistent with section 364(b) of the George Floyd Justice 
     in Policing Act of 2021; or
       ``(2) that officer's gross negligence, leading up to and at 
     the time of the use of force, contributed to the necessity of 
     the use of such force.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the terms `deadly force' and `less lethal force' have 
     the meanings given such terms in section 2 and section 364 of 
     the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021; and
       ``(2) the term `Federal law enforcement officer' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 115.''.
       (B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     51 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 1122 the following:

``1123. Limitation on justification defense for Federal law enforcement 
              officers.''.
       (c) Limitation on the Receipt of Funds Under the Edward 
     Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.--
       (1) Limitation.--A State or unit of local government, other 
     than an Indian Tribe, may not receive funds that the State or 
     unit of local government would otherwise receive under a 
     Byrne grant program for a fiscal year if, on the day before 
     the first day of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local 
     government does not have in effect a law that is consistent 
     with subsection (b) of this section and section 1123 of title 
     18, United States Code, as determined by the Attorney 
     General.
       (2) Subsequent enactment.--
       (A) In general.--If funds described in paragraph (1) are 
     withheld from a State or unit of local government pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) for 1 or more fiscal years, and the State or 
     unit of local government enacts or puts in place a law 
     described in paragraph (1), and demonstrates substantial 
     efforts to enforce such law, subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     State or unit of local government shall be eligible, in the 
     fiscal year after the fiscal year during which the State or 
     unit of local government demonstrates such substantial 
     efforts, to receive the total amount that the State or unit 
     of local government would have received during each fiscal 
     year for which funds were withheld.
       (B) Limit on amount of prior year funds.--A State or unit 
     of local government may not receive funds under subparagraph 
     (A) in an amount that is more than the amount withheld from 
     the State or unit of local government during the 5-fiscal-
     year period before the fiscal year during which funds are 
     received under subparagraph (A).
       (3) Guidance.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation 
     with impacted persons, communities, and organizations, 
     including representatives of civil and human rights 
     organizations, individuals against whom a law enforcement 
     officer used force, and representatives of law enforcement 
     associations, shall make guidance available to States and 
     units of local government on the criteria that the Attorney 
     General will use in determining whether the State or unit of 
     local government has in place a law described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (4) Application.--This subsection shall apply to the first 
     fiscal year that begins after the date that is 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.

     SEC. 365. STOP MILITARIZING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Under section 2576a of title 10, United States Code, 
     the Department of Defense is authorized to provide excess 
     property to local law enforcement agencies. The Defense 
     Logistics Agency, administers such section by operating the 
     Law Enforcement Support Office program.
       (2) New and used material, including mine-resistant ambush-
     protected vehicles and weapons determined by the Department 
     of Defense to be ``military grade'' are transferred to 
     Federal, Tribal, State, and local law enforcement agencies 
     through the program.
       (3) As a result local law enforcement agencies, including 
     police and sheriff's departments, are acquiring this material 
     for use in their normal operations.
       (4) As a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
     military equipment purchased for, and used in, those wars has 
     become excess property and has been made available for 
     transfer to local and Federal law enforcement agencies.
       (5) In Fiscal Year 2017, $504,000,000 worth of property was 
     transferred to law enforcement agencies.
       (6) More than $6,800,000,000 worth of weapons and equipment 
     have been transferred to police organizations in all 50 
     States and four territories through the program.
       (7) In May 2012, the Defense Logistics Agency instituted a 
     moratorium on weapons transfers through the program after 
     reports of missing equipment and inappropriate weapons 
     transfers.
       (8) Though the moratorium was widely publicized, it was 
     lifted in October 2013 without adequate safeguards.
       (9) On January 16, 2015, President Barack Obama issued 
     Executive Order 13688 to better coordinate and regulate the 
     federal transfer of military weapons and equipment to State, 
     local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies.
       (10) In July, 2017, the Government Accountability Office 
     reported that the program's internal controls were inadequate 
     to prevent fraudulent applicants' access to the program.
       (11) On August, 28, 2017, President Donald Trump rescinded 
     Executive Order 13688 despite a July 2017 Government 
     Accountability Office report finding deficiencies with the 
     administration of the 1033 program.
       (12) As a result, Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     departments across the country are eligible again to acquire 
     free ``military-grade'' weapons and equipment that could be 
     used inappropriately during policing efforts in which people 
     and taxpayers could be harmed.
       (13) The Department of Defense categorizes equipment 
     eligible for transfer under the 1033 program as 
     ``controlled'' and ``un-controlled'' equipment. ``Controlled 
     equipment'' includes weapons, explosives such as flash-bang 
     grenades, mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, long-
     range acoustic devices, aircraft capable of being modified to 
     carry armament that are combat coded, and silencers, among 
     other military grade items.
       (b) Limitation on Department of Defense Transfer of 
     Personal Property to Local Law Enforcement Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2576a of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``counterdrug, 
     counterterrorism, and border security activities'' and 
     inserting ``counterterrorism''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, the Director of 
     National Drug Control Policy,'';
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(7) the recipient submits to the Department of Defense a 
     description of how the recipient expects to use the property;

[[Page H1049]]

       ``(8) the recipient certifies to the Department of Defense 
     that if the recipient determines that the property is surplus 
     to the needs of the recipient, the recipient will return the 
     property to the Department of Defense;
       ``(9) with respect to a recipient that is not a Federal 
     agency, the recipient certifies to the Department of Defense 
     that the recipient notified the local community of the 
     request for personal property under this section by--
       ``(A) publishing a notice of such request on a publicly 
     accessible Internet website;
       ``(B) posting such notice at several prominent locations in 
     the jurisdiction of the recipient; and
       ``(C) ensuring that such notices were available to the 
     local community for a period of not less than 30 days; and
       ``(10) the recipient has received the approval of the city 
     council or other local governing body to acquire the personal 
     property sought under this section.'';
       (C) by striking subsection (d);
       (D) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (o) and (p), respectively; and
       (E) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(d) Annual Certification Accounting for Transferred 
     Property.--(1) For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress certification in writing that each Federal 
     or State agency to which the Secretary has transferred 
     property under this section--
       ``(A) has provided to the Secretary documentation 
     accounting for all controlled property, including arms and 
     ammunition, that the Secretary has transferred to the agency, 
     including any item described in subsection (f) so transferred 
     before the date of the enactment of the George Floyd Justice 
     in Policing Act of 2021; and
       ``(B) with respect to a non-Federal agency, carried out 
     each of paragraphs (5) through (8) of subsection (b).
       ``(2) If the Secretary does not provide a certification 
     under paragraph (1) for a Federal or State agency, the 
     Secretary may not transfer additional property to that agency 
     under this section.
       ``(e) Annual Report on Excess Property.--Before making any 
     property available for transfer under this section, the 
     Secretary shall annually submit to Congress a description of 
     the property to be transferred together with a certification 
     that the transfer of the property would not violate this 
     section or any other provision of law.
       ``(f) Limitations on Transfers.--(1) The Secretary may not 
     transfer to Federal, Tribal, State, or local law enforcement 
     agencies the following under this section:
       ``(A) Firearms, ammunition, bayonets, grenade launchers, 
     grenades (including stun and flash-bang), and explosives.
       ``(B) Vehicles, except for passenger automobiles (as such 
     term is defined in section 32901(a)(18) of title 49, United 
     States Code) and bucket trucks.
       ``(C) Drones.
       ``(D) Controlled aircraft that--
       ``(i) are combat configured or combat coded; or
       ``(ii) have no established commercial flight application.
       ``(E) Silencers.
       ``(F) Long-range acoustic devices.
       ``(G) Items in the Federal Supply Class of banned items.
       ``(2) The Secretary may not require, as a condition of a 
     transfer under this section, that a Federal or State agency 
     demonstrate the use of any small arms or ammunition.
       ``(3) The limitations under this subsection shall also 
     apply with respect to the transfer of previously transferred 
     property of the Department of Defense from one Federal or 
     State agency to another such agency.
       ``(4)(A) The Secretary may waive the applicability of 
     paragraph (1) to a vehicle described in subparagraph (B) of 
     such paragraph (other than a mine-resistant ambush-protected 
     vehicle), if the Secretary determines that such a waiver is 
     necessary for disaster or rescue purposes or for another 
     purpose where life and public safety are at risk, as 
     demonstrated by the proposed recipient of the vehicle.
       ``(B) If the Secretary issues a waiver under subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) submit to Congress notice of the waiver, and post 
     such notice on a public Internet website of the Department, 
     by not later than 30 days after the date on which the waiver 
     is issued; and
       ``(ii) require, as a condition of the waiver, that the 
     recipient of the vehicle for which the waiver is issued 
     provides public notice of the waiver and the transfer, 
     including the type of vehicle and the purpose for which it is 
     transferred, in the jurisdiction where the recipient is 
     located by not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     waiver is issued.
       ``(5) The Secretary may provide for an exemption to the 
     limitation under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) in the 
     case of parts for aircraft described in such subparagraph 
     that are transferred as part of regular maintenance of 
     aircraft in an existing fleet.
       ``(6) The Secretary shall require, as a condition of any 
     transfer of property under this section, that the Federal or 
     State agency that receives the property shall return the 
     property to the Secretary if the agency--
       ``(A) is investigated by the Department of Justice for any 
     violation of civil liberties; or
       ``(B) is otherwise found to have engaged in widespread 
     abuses of civil liberties.
       ``(g) Conditions for Extension of Program.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated or otherwise made available for any fiscal year 
     may not be obligated or expended to carry out this section 
     unless the Secretary submits to Congress certification that 
     for the preceding fiscal year that--
       ``(1) each Federal or State agency that has received 
     controlled property transferred under this section has--
       ``(A) demonstrated 100 percent accountability for all such 
     property, in accordance with paragraph (2) or (3), as 
     applicable; or
       ``(B) been suspended from the program pursuant to paragraph 
     (4);
       ``(2) with respect to each non-Federal agency that has 
     received controlled property under this section, the State 
     coordinator responsible for each such agency has verified 
     that the coordinator or an agent of the coordinator has 
     conducted an in-person inventory of the property transferred 
     to the agency and that 100 percent of such property was 
     accounted for during the inventory or that the agency has 
     been suspended from the program pursuant to paragraph (4);
       ``(3) with respect to each Federal agency that has received 
     controlled property under this section, the Secretary of 
     Defense or an agent of the Secretary has conducted an in-
     person inventory of the property transferred to the agency 
     and that 100 percent of such property was accounted for 
     during the inventory or that the agency has been suspended 
     from the program pursuant to paragraph (4);
       ``(4) the eligibility of any agency that has received 
     controlled property under this section for which 100 percent 
     of the property was not accounted for during an inventory 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable, to receive 
     any property transferred under this section has been 
     suspended; and
       ``(5) each State coordinator has certified, for each non-
     Federal agency located in the State for which the State 
     coordinator is responsible that--
       ``(A) the agency has complied with all requirements under 
     this section; or
       ``(B) the eligibility of the agency to receive property 
     transferred under this section has been suspended; and
       ``(6) the Secretary of Defense has certified, for each 
     Federal agency that has received property under this section 
     that--
       ``(A) the agency has complied with all requirements under 
     this section; or
       ``(B) the eligibility of the agency to receive property 
     transferred under this section has been suspended.
       ``(h) Prohibition on Ownership of Controlled Property.--A 
     Federal or State agency that receives controlled property 
     under this section may not take ownership of the property.
       ``(i) Notice to Congress of Property Downgrades.--Not later 
     than 30 days before downgrading the classification of any 
     item of personal property from controlled or Federal Supply 
     Class, the Secretary shall submit to Congress notice of the 
     proposed downgrade.
       ``(j) Notice to Congress of Property Cannibalization.--
     Before the Defense Logistics Agency authorizes the recipient 
     of property transferred under this section to cannibalize the 
     property, the Secretary shall submit to Congress notice of 
     such authorization, including the name of the recipient 
     requesting the authorization, the purpose of the proposed 
     cannibalization, and the type of property proposed to be 
     cannibalized.
       ``(k) Quarterly Reports on Use of Controlled Equipment.--
     Not later than 30 days after the last day of a fiscal 
     quarter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on 
     any uses of controlled property transferred under this 
     section during that fiscal quarter.
       ``(l) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the last day of a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the following for the preceding fiscal 
     year:
       ``(1) The percentage of equipment lost by recipients of 
     property transferred under this section, including specific 
     information about the type of property lost, the monetary 
     value of such property, and the recipient that lost the 
     property.
       ``(2) The transfer of any new (condition code A) property 
     transferred under this section, including specific 
     information about the type of property, the recipient of the 
     property, the monetary value of each item of the property, 
     and the total monetary value of all such property transferred 
     during the fiscal year.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to any transfer of property made 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 366. PUBLIC SAFETY INNOVATION GRANTS.

       (a) Byrne Grants Used for Local Task Forces on Public 
     Safety Innovation.--Section 501(a) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151(a)), as 
     amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(3) Local task forces on public safety innovation.--
       ``(A) In general.--A law enforcement program under 
     paragraph (1)(A) may include the development of best 
     practices for and the creation of local task forces on public 
     safety innovation, charged with exploring and developing new 
     strategies for public safety, including non-law enforcement 
     strategies.
       ``(B) Definition.--The term `local task force on public 
     safety innovation' means an administrative entity, created 
     from partnerships between community-based organizations and 
     other local stakeholders, that may develop innovative law 
     enforcement and non-law enforcement strategies to enhance 
     just and equitable public safety, repair breaches of trust 
     between law enforcement agencies

[[Page H1050]]

     and the community they pledge to serve, and enhance 
     accountability of law enforcement officers.''.
       (b) Crisis Intervention Teams.--Section 501(c) of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 
     U.S.C. 10152(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) In the case of crisis intervention teams funded under 
     subsection (a)(1)(H), a program assessment under this 
     subsection shall contain a report on best practices for 
     crisis intervention.''.
       (c) Use of COPS Grant Program To Hire Law Enforcement 
     Officers Who Are Residents of the Communities They Serve.--
     Section 1701(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381(b)), as amended by 
     this Act, is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (23) and (24) as paragraphs 
     (26) and (27), respectively;
       (2) in paragraph (26), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``(22)'' and inserting ``(25)''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (22) the following:
       ``(23) to recruit, hire, incentivize, retain, develop, and 
     train new, additional career law enforcement officers or 
     current law enforcement officers who are willing to relocate 
     to communities--
       ``(A) where there are poor or fragmented relationships 
     between police and residents of the community, or where there 
     are high incidents of crime; and
       ``(B) that are the communities that the law enforcement 
     officers serve, or that are in close proximity to the 
     communities that the law enforcement officers serve;
       ``(24) to collect data on the number of law enforcement 
     officers who are willing to relocate to the communities where 
     they serve, and whether such law enforcement officer 
     relocations have impacted crime in such communities;
       ``(25) to develop and publicly report strategies and 
     timelines to recruit, hire, promote, retain, develop, and 
     train a diverse and inclusive law enforcement workforce, 
     consistent with merit system principles and applicable 
     law;''.

                Subtitle C--Law Enforcement Body Cameras

          PART 1--FEDERAL POLICE CAMERA AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

     SEC. 371. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 372. REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS 
                   REGARDING THE USE OF BODY CAMERAS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Minor.--The term ``minor'' means any individual under 
     18 years of age.
       (2) Subject of the video footage.--The term ``subject of 
     the video footage''--
       (A) means any identifiable Federal law enforcement officer 
     or any identifiable suspect, victim, detainee, conversant, 
     injured party, or other similarly situated person who appears 
     on the body camera recording; and
       (B) does not include people who only incidentally appear on 
     the recording.
       (3) Video footage.--The term ``video footage'' means any 
     images or audio recorded by a body camera.
       (b) Requirement to Wear Body Camera.--
       (1) In general.--Federal law enforcement officers shall 
     wear a body camera.
       (2) Requirement for body camera.--A body camera required 
     under paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) have a field of view at least as broad as the officer's 
     vision; and
       (B) be worn in a manner that maximizes the camera's ability 
     to capture video footage of the officer's activities.
       (c) Requirement To Activate.--
       (1) In general.--Both the video and audio recording 
     functions of the body camera shall be activated whenever a 
     Federal law enforcement officer is responding to a call for 
     service or at the initiation of any other law enforcement or 
     investigative stop (as such term is defined in section 373) 
     between a Federal law enforcement officer and a member of the 
     public, except that when an immediate threat to the officer's 
     life or safety makes activating the camera impossible or 
     dangerous, the officer shall activate the camera at the first 
     reasonable opportunity to do so.
       (2) Allowable deactivation.--The body camera shall not be 
     deactivated until the stop has fully concluded and the 
     Federal law enforcement officer leaves the scene.
       (d) Notification of Subject of Recording.--A Federal law 
     enforcement officer who is wearing a body camera shall notify 
     any subject of the recording that he or she is being recorded 
     by a body camera as close to the inception of the stop as is 
     reasonably possible.
       (e) Requirements.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the 
     following shall apply to the use of a body camera:
       (1) Prior to entering a private residence without a warrant 
     or in non-exigent circumstances, a Federal law enforcement 
     officer shall ask the occupant if the occupant wants the 
     officer to discontinue use of the officer's body camera. If 
     the occupant responds affirmatively, the Federal law 
     enforcement officer shall immediately discontinue use of the 
     body camera.
       (2) When interacting with an apparent crime victim, a 
     Federal law enforcement officer shall, as soon as 
     practicable, ask the apparent crime victim if the apparent 
     crime victim wants the officer to discontinue use of the 
     officer's body camera. If the apparent crime victim responds 
     affirmatively, the Federal law enforcement officer shall 
     immediately discontinue use of the body camera.
       (3) When interacting with a person seeking to anonymously 
     report a crime or assist in an ongoing law enforcement 
     investigation, a Federal law enforcement officer shall, as 
     soon as practicable, ask the person seeking to remain 
     anonymous, if the person seeking to remain anonymous wants 
     the officer to discontinue use of the officer's body camera. 
     If the person seeking to remain anonymous responds 
     affirmatively, the Federal law enforcement officer shall 
     immediately discontinue use of the body camera.
       (f) Recording of Offers To Discontinue Use of Body 
     Camera.--Each offer of a Federal law enforcement officer to 
     discontinue the use of a body camera made pursuant to 
     subsection (e), and the responses thereto, shall be recorded 
     by the body camera prior to discontinuing use of the body 
     camera.
       (g) Limitations on Use of Body Camera.--Body cameras shall 
     not be used to gather intelligence information based on First 
     Amendment protected speech, associations, or religion, or to 
     record activity that is unrelated to a response to a call for 
     service or a law enforcement or investigative stop between a 
     law enforcement officer and a member of the public, and shall 
     not be equipped with or employ any facial recognition 
     technologies.
       (h) Exceptions.--Federal law enforcement officers--
       (1) shall not be required to use body cameras during 
     investigative or enforcement stops with the public in the 
     case that--
       (A) recording would risk the safety of a confidential 
     informant, citizen informant, or undercover officer;
       (B) recording would pose a serious risk to national 
     security; or
       (C) the officer is a military police officer, a member of 
     the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, or a 
     protective detail assigned to a Federal or foreign official 
     while performing his or her duties; and
       (2) shall not activate a body camera while on the grounds 
     of any public, private or parochial elementary or secondary 
     school, except when responding to an imminent threat to life 
     or health.
       (i) Retention of Footage.--
       (1) In general.--Body camera video footage shall be 
     retained by the law enforcement agency that employs the 
     officer whose camera captured the footage, or an authorized 
     agent thereof, for 6 months after the date it was recorded, 
     after which time such footage shall be permanently deleted.
       (2) Right to inspect.--During the 6-month retention period 
     described in paragraph (1), the following persons shall have 
     the right to inspect the body camera footage:
       (A) Any person who is a subject of body camera video 
     footage, and their designated legal counsel.
       (B) A parent or legal guardian of a minor subject of body 
     camera video footage, and their designated legal counsel.
       (C) The spouse, next of kin, or legally authorized designee 
     of a deceased subject of body camera video footage, and their 
     designated legal counsel.
       (D) A Federal law enforcement officer whose body camera 
     recorded the video footage, and their designated legal 
     counsel, subject to the limitations and restrictions in this 
     part.
       (E) The superior officer of a Federal law enforcement 
     officer whose body camera recorded the video footage, subject 
     to the limitations and restrictions in this part.
       (F) Any defense counsel who claims, pursuant to a written 
     affidavit, to have a reasonable basis for believing a video 
     may contain evidence that exculpates a client.
       (3) Limitation.--The right to inspect subject to subsection 
     (j)(1) shall not include the right to possess a copy of the 
     body camera video footage, unless the release of the body 
     camera footage is otherwise authorized by this part or by 
     another applicable law. When a body camera fails to capture 
     some or all of the audio or video of an incident due to 
     malfunction, displacement of camera, or any other cause, any 
     audio or video footage that is captured shall be treated the 
     same as any other body camera audio or video footage under 
     this part.
       (j) Additional Retention Requirements.--Notwithstanding the 
     retention and deletion requirements in subsection (i), the 
     following shall apply to body camera video footage under this 
     part:
       (1) Body camera video footage shall be automatically 
     retained for not less than 3 years if the video footage 
     captures an interaction or event involving--
       (A) any use of force; or
       (B) an stop about which a complaint has been registered by 
     a subject of the video footage.
       (2) Body camera video footage shall be retained for not 
     less than 3 years if a longer retention period is voluntarily 
     requested by--
       (A) the Federal law enforcement officer whose body camera 
     recorded the video footage, if that officer reasonably 
     asserts the video footage has evidentiary or exculpatory 
     value in an ongoing investigation;
       (B) any Federal law enforcement officer who is a subject of 
     the video footage, if that officer reasonably asserts the 
     video footage has evidentiary or exculpatory value;
       (C) any superior officer of a Federal law enforcement 
     officer whose body camera recorded the video footage or who 
     is a subject of the video footage, if that superior officer 
     reasonably asserts the video footage has evidentiary or 
     exculpatory value;

[[Page H1051]]

       (D) any Federal law enforcement officer, if the video 
     footage is being retained solely and exclusively for police 
     training purposes;
       (E) any member of the public who is a subject of the video 
     footage;
       (F) any parent or legal guardian of a minor who is a 
     subject of the video footage; or
       (G) a deceased subject's spouse, next of kin, or legally 
     authorized designee.
       (k) Public Review.--For purposes of subparagraphs (E), (F), 
     and (G) of subsection (j)(2), any member of the public who is 
     a subject of video footage, the parent or legal guardian of a 
     minor who is a subject of the video footage, or a deceased 
     subject's next of kin or legally authorized designee, shall 
     be permitted to review the specific video footage in question 
     in order to make a determination as to whether they will 
     voluntarily request it be subjected to a minimum 3-year 
     retention period.
       (l) Disclosure.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), all 
     video footage of an interaction or event captured by a body 
     camera, if that interaction or event is identified with 
     reasonable specificity and requested by a member of the 
     public, shall be provided to the person or entity making the 
     request in accordance with the procedures for requesting and 
     providing government records set forth in the section 552a of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Exceptions.--The following categories of video footage 
     shall not be released to the public in the absence of express 
     written permission from the non-law enforcement subjects of 
     the video footage:
       (A) Video footage not subject to a minimum 3-year retention 
     period pursuant to subsection (j).
       (B) Video footage that is subject to a minimum 3-year 
     retention period solely and exclusively pursuant to paragraph 
     (1)(B) or (2) of subsection (j).
       (3) Priority of requests.--Notwithstanding any time periods 
     established for acknowledging and responding to records 
     requests in section 552a of title 5, United States Code, 
     responses to requests for video footage that is subject to a 
     minimum 3-year retention period pursuant to subsection 
     (j)(1)(A), where a subject of the video footage is recorded 
     being killed, shot by a firearm, or grievously injured, shall 
     be prioritized and, if approved, the requested video footage 
     shall be provided as expeditiously as possible, but in no 
     circumstances later than 5 days following receipt of the 
     request.
       (4) Use of redaction technology.--
       (A) In general.--Whenever doing so is necessary to protect 
     personal privacy, the right to a fair trial, the identity of 
     a confidential source or crime victim, or the life or 
     physical safety of any person appearing in video footage, 
     redaction technology may be used to obscure the face and 
     other personally identifying characteristics of that person, 
     including the tone of the person's voice, provided the 
     redaction does not interfere with a viewer's ability to 
     fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events 
     captured on the video footage.
       (B) Requirements.--The following requirements shall apply 
     to redactions under subparagraph (A):
       (i) When redaction is performed on video footage pursuant 
     to this paragraph, an unedited, original version of the video 
     footage shall be retained pursuant to the requirements of 
     subsections (i) and (j).
       (ii) Except pursuant to the rules for the redaction of 
     video footage set forth in this subsection or where it is 
     otherwise expressly authorized by this Act, no other editing 
     or alteration of video footage, including a reduction of the 
     video footage's resolution, shall be permitted.
       (m) Prohibited Withholding of Footage.--Body camera video 
     footage may not be withheld from the public on the basis that 
     it is an investigatory record or was compiled for law 
     enforcement purposes where any person under investigation or 
     whose conduct is under review is a police officer or other 
     law enforcement employee and the video footage relates to 
     that person's conduct in their official capacity.
       (n) Admissibility.--Any video footage retained beyond 6 
     months solely and exclusively pursuant to subsection 
     (j)(2)(D) shall not be admissible as evidence in any criminal 
     or civil legal or administrative proceeding.
       (o) Confidentiality.--No government agency or official, or 
     law enforcement agency, officer, or official may publicly 
     disclose, release, or share body camera video footage 
     unless--
       (1) doing so is expressly authorized pursuant to this part 
     or another applicable law; or
       (2) the video footage is subject to public release pursuant 
     to subsection (l), and not exempted from public release 
     pursuant to subsection (l)(1).
       (p) Limitation on Federal Law Enforcement Officer Viewing 
     of Body Camera Footage.--No Federal law enforcement officer 
     shall review or receive an accounting of any body camera 
     video footage that is subject to a minimum 3-year retention 
     period pursuant to subsection (j)(1) prior to completing any 
     required initial reports, statements, and interviews 
     regarding the recorded event, unless doing so is necessary, 
     while in the field, to address an immediate threat to life or 
     safety.
       (q) Additional Limitations.--Video footage may not be--
       (1) in the case of footage that is not subject to a minimum 
     3-year retention period, viewed by any superior officer of a 
     Federal law enforcement officer whose body camera recorded 
     the footage absent a specific allegation of misconduct; or
       (2) divulged or used by any law enforcement agency for any 
     commercial or other non-law enforcement purpose.
       (r) Third Party Maintenance of Footage.--Where a law 
     enforcement agency authorizes a third party to act as its 
     agent in maintaining body camera footage, the agent shall not 
     be permitted to independently access, view, or alter any 
     video footage, except to delete videos as required by law or 
     agency retention policies.
       (s) Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--If any Federal law enforcement officer, or 
     any employee or agent of a Federal law enforcement agency 
     fails to adhere to the recording or retention requirements 
     contained in this part, intentionally interferes with a body 
     camera's ability to accurately capture video footage, or 
     otherwise manipulates the video footage captured by a body 
     camera during or after its operation--
       (A) appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken against 
     the individual officer, employee, or agent;
       (B) a rebuttable evidentiary presumption shall be adopted 
     in favor of a criminal defendant who reasonably asserts that 
     exculpatory evidence was destroyed or not captured; and
       (C) a rebuttable evidentiary presumption shall be adopted 
     on behalf of a civil plaintiff suing the Government, a 
     Federal law enforcement agency, or a Federal law enforcement 
     officer for damages based on misconduct who reasonably 
     asserts that evidence supporting their claim was destroyed or 
     not captured.
       (2) Proof compliance was impossible.--The disciplinary 
     action requirement and rebuttable presumptions described in 
     paragraph (1) may be overcome by contrary evidence or proof 
     of exigent circumstances that made compliance impossible.
       (t) Use of Force Investigations.--In the case that a 
     Federal law enforcement officer equipped with a body camera 
     is involved in, a witness to, or within viewable sight range 
     of either the use of force by another law enforcement officer 
     that results in a death, the use of force by another law 
     enforcement officer, during which the discharge of a firearm 
     results in an injury, or the conduct of another law 
     enforcement officer that becomes the subject of a criminal 
     investigation--
       (1) the law enforcement agency that employs the law 
     enforcement officer, or the agency or department conducting 
     the related criminal investigation, as appropriate, shall 
     promptly take possession of the body camera, and shall 
     maintain such camera, and any data on such camera, in 
     accordance with the applicable rules governing the 
     preservation of evidence;
       (2) a copy of the data on such body camera shall be made in 
     accordance with prevailing forensic standards for data 
     collection and reproduction; and
       (3) such copied data shall be made available to the public 
     in accordance with subsection (l).
       (u) Limitation on Use of Footage as Evidence.--Any body 
     camera video footage recorded by a Federal law enforcement 
     officer that violates this part or any other applicable law 
     may not be offered as evidence by any government entity, 
     agency, department, prosecutorial office, or any other 
     subdivision thereof in any criminal or civil action or 
     proceeding against any member of the public.
       (v) Publication of Agency Policies.--Any Federal law 
     enforcement agency policy or other guidance regarding body 
     cameras, their use, or the video footage therefrom that is 
     adopted by a Federal agency or department, shall be made 
     publicly available on that agency's website.
       (w) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this part shall be 
     construed to preempt any laws governing the maintenance, 
     production, and destruction of evidence in criminal 
     investigations and prosecutions.

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

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Audio recording.--The term ``audio recording'' means 
     the recorded conversation between a Federal law enforcement 
     officer and a second party.
       (2) Emergency lights.--The term ``emergency lights'' means 
     oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights on patrol vehicles.
       (3) Enforcement or investigative stop.--The term 
     ``enforcement or investigative stop'' means an action by a 
     Federal law enforcement officer in relation to enforcement 
     and investigation duties, including traffic stops, pedestrian 
     stops, abandoned vehicle contacts, motorist assists, 
     commercial motor vehicle stops, roadside safety checks, 
     requests for identification, or responses to requests for 
     emergency assistance.
       (4) In-car video camera.--The term ``in-car video camera'' 
     means a video camera located in a patrol vehicle.
       (5) In-car video camera recording equipment.--The term 
     ``in-car video camera recording equipment'' means a video 
     camera recording system located in a patrol vehicle 
     consisting of a camera assembly, recording mechanism, and an 
     in-car video recording medium.
       (6) Recording.--The term ``recording'' means the process of 
     capturing data or information stored on a recording medium as 
     required under this section.
       (7) Recording medium.--The term ``recording medium'' means 
     any recording medium for the retention and playback of 
     recorded

[[Page H1052]]

     audio and video including VHS, DVD, hard drive, solid state, 
     digital, or flash memory technology.
       (8) Wireless microphone.--The term ``wireless microphone'' 
     means a device worn by a Federal law enforcement officer or 
     any other equipment used to record conversations between the 
     officer and a second party and transmitted to the recording 
     equipment.
       (b) Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Each Federal law enforcement agency shall 
     install in-car video camera recording equipment in all patrol 
     vehicles with a recording medium capable of recording for a 
     period of 10 hours or more and capable of making audio 
     recordings with the assistance of a wireless microphone.
       (2) Recording equipment requirements.--In-car video camera 
     recording equipment with a recording medium capable of 
     recording for a period of 10 hours or more shall record 
     activities--
       (A) whenever a patrol vehicle is assigned to patrol duty;
       (B) outside a patrol vehicle whenever--
       (i) a Federal law enforcement officer assigned that patrol 
     vehicle is conducting an enforcement or investigative stop;
       (ii) patrol vehicle emergency lights are activated or would 
     otherwise be activated if not for the need to conceal the 
     presence of law enforcement; or
       (iii) an officer reasonably believes recording may assist 
     with prosecution, enhance safety, or for any other lawful 
     purpose; and
       (C) inside the vehicle when transporting an arrestee or 
     when an officer reasonably believes recording may assist with 
     prosecution, enhance safety, or for any other lawful purpose.
       (3) Requirements for recording.--
       (A) In general.--A Federal law enforcement officer shall 
     begin recording for an enforcement or investigative stop when 
     the officer determines an enforcement stop is necessary and 
     shall continue until the enforcement action has been 
     completed and the subject of the enforcement or investigative 
     stop or the officer has left the scene.
       (B) Activation with lights.--A Federal law enforcement 
     officer shall begin recording when patrol vehicle emergency 
     lights are activated or when they would otherwise be 
     activated if not for the need to conceal the presence of law 
     enforcement, and shall continue until the reason for the 
     activation ceases to exist, regardless of whether the 
     emergency lights are no longer activated.
       (C) Permissible recording.--A Federal law enforcement 
     officer may begin recording if the officer reasonably 
     believes recording may assist with prosecution, enhance 
     safety, or for any other lawful purpose; and shall continue 
     until the reason for recording ceases to exist.
       (4) Enforcement or investigative stops.--A Federal law 
     enforcement officer shall record any enforcement or 
     investigative stop. Audio recording shall terminate upon 
     release of the violator and prior to initiating a separate 
     criminal investigation.
       (c) Retention of Recordings.--Recordings made on in-car 
     video camera recording medium shall be retained for a storage 
     period of at least 90 days. Under no circumstances shall any 
     recording made on in-car video camera recording medium be 
     altered or erased prior to the expiration of the designated 
     storage period. Upon completion of the storage period, the 
     recording medium may be erased and reissued for operational 
     use unless otherwise ordered or if designated for evidentiary 
     or training purposes.
       (d) Accessibility of Recordings.--Audio or video recordings 
     made pursuant to this section shall be available under the 
     applicable provisions of section 552a of title 5, United 
     States Code. Only recorded portions of the audio recording or 
     video recording medium applicable to the request will be 
     available for inspection or copying.
       (e) Maintenance Required.--The agency shall ensure proper 
     care and maintenance of in-car video camera recording 
     equipment and recording medium. An officer operating a patrol 
     vehicle must immediately document and notify the appropriate 
     person of any technical difficulties, failures, or problems 
     with the in-car video camera recording equipment or recording 
     medium. Upon receiving notice, every reasonable effort shall 
     be made to correct and repair any of the in-car video camera 
     recording equipment or recording medium and determine if it 
     is in the public interest to permit the use of the patrol 
     vehicle.

     SEC. 374. FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.

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

     SEC. 375. GAO STUDY.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct a study on Federal law enforcement officer training, 
     vehicle pursuits, use of force, and interaction with 
     citizens, and submit a report on such study to--
       (1) the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and of the Senate;
       (2) the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (3) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate.

     SEC. 376. REGULATIONS.

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

     SEC. 377. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

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

                       PART 2--POLICE CAMERA ACT

     SEC. 381. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

       (a) Use of Funds Requirement.--Section 502(a) of title I of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 
     U.S.C. 10153(a)), as amended by section 334, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by 
     an application, the applicant will use not less than 5 
     percent of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal 
     year to develop policies and protocols in compliance with 
     part OO.''.
       (b) Requirements.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

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

     ``SEC. 3051. USE OF GRANT FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--Grant amounts described in paragraph 
     (10) of section 502(a) of this title--
       ``(1) shall be used--
       ``(A) to purchase or lease body-worn cameras for use by 
     State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers (as defined 
     in section 2503);
       ``(B) for expenses related to the implementation of a body-
     worn camera program in order to deter excessive force, 
     improve accountability and transparency of use of force by 
     law enforcement officers, assist in responding to complaints 
     against law enforcement officers, and improve evidence 
     collection; and
       ``(C) to implement policies or procedures to comply with 
     the requirements described in subsection (b); and
       ``(2) may not be used for expenses related to facial 
     recognition technology.
       ``(b) Requirements.--A recipient of a grant under subpart 1 
     of part E of this title shall--
       ``(1) establish policies and procedures in accordance with 
     the requirements described in subsection (c) before law 
     enforcement officers use of body-worn cameras;
       ``(2) adopt recorded data collection and retention 
     protocols as described in subsection (d) before law 
     enforcement officers use of body-worn cameras;
       ``(3) make the policies and protocols described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) available to the public; and
       ``(4) comply with the requirements for use of recorded data 
     under subsection (f).
       ``(c) Required Policies and Procedures.--A recipient of a 
     grant under subpart 1 of part E of this title shall--
       ``(1) develop with community input and publish for public 
     view policies and protocols for--
       ``(A) the safe and effective use of body-worn cameras;
       ``(B) the secure storage, handling, and destruction of 
     recorded data collected by body-worn cameras;
       ``(C) protecting the privacy rights of any individual who 
     may be recorded by a body-worn camera;
       ``(D) the release of any recorded data collected by a body-
     worn camera in accordance with the open records laws, if any, 
     of the State; and
       ``(E) making recorded data available to prosecutors, 
     defense attorneys, and other officers of the court in 
     accordance with subparagraph (E); and
       ``(2) conduct periodic evaluations of the security of the 
     storage and handling of the body-worn camera data.
       ``(d) Recorded Data Collection and Retention Protocol.--The 
     recorded data collection and retention protocol described in 
     this paragraph is a protocol that--
       ``(1) requires--
       ``(A) a law enforcement officer who is wearing a body-worn 
     camera to provide an explanation if an activity that is 
     required to be recorded by the body-worn camera is not 
     recorded;
       ``(B) a law enforcement officer who is wearing a body-worn 
     camera to obtain consent to be recorded from a crime victim 
     or witness before interviewing the victim or witness;
       ``(C) the collection of recorded data unrelated to a 
     legitimate law enforcement purpose be minimized to the 
     greatest extent practicable;
       ``(D) the system used to store recorded data collected by 
     body-worn cameras to log all viewing, modification, or 
     deletion of stored recorded data and to prevent, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, the unauthorized access or 
     disclosure of stored recorded data;
       ``(E) any law enforcement officer be prohibited from 
     accessing the stored data without an authorized purpose; and
       ``(F) the law enforcement agency to collect and report 
     statistical data on--
       ``(i) incidences of use of force, disaggregated by race, 
     ethnicity, gender, and age of the victim;
       ``(ii) the number of complaints filed against law 
     enforcement officers;
       ``(iii) the disposition of complaints filed against law 
     enforcement officers;

[[Page H1053]]

       ``(iv) the number of times camera footage is used for 
     evidence collection in investigations of crimes; and
       ``(v) any other additional statistical data that the 
     Director determines should be collected and reported;
       ``(2) allows an individual to file a complaint with a law 
     enforcement agency relating to the improper use of body-worn 
     cameras; and
       ``(3) complies with any other requirements established by 
     the Director.
       ``(e) Reporting.--Statistical data required to be collected 
     under subsection (d)(1)(D) shall be reported to the Director, 
     who shall--
       ``(1) establish a standardized reporting system for 
     statistical data collected under this program; and
       ``(2) establish a national database of statistical data 
     recorded under this program.
       ``(f) Use or Transfer of Recorded Data.--
       ``(1) In general.--Recorded data collected by an entity 
     receiving a grant under a grant under subpart 1 of part E of 
     this title from a body-worn camera shall be used only in 
     internal and external investigations of misconduct by a law 
     enforcement agency or officer, if there is reasonable 
     suspicion that a recording contains evidence of a crime, or 
     for limited training purposes. The Director shall establish 
     rules to ensure that the recorded data is used only for the 
     purposes described in this paragraph.
       ``(2) Prohibition on transfer.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (3), an entity receiving a grant under subpart 1 of 
     part E of this title may not transfer any recorded data 
     collected by the entity from a body-worn camera to another 
     law enforcement or intelligence agency.
       ``(3) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Criminal investigation.--An entity receiving a grant 
     under subpart 1 of part E of this title may transfer recorded 
     data collected by the entity from a body-worn camera to 
     another law enforcement agency or intelligence agency for use 
     in a criminal investigation if the requesting law enforcement 
     or intelligence agency has reasonable suspicion that the 
     requested data contains evidence relating to the crime being 
     investigated.
       ``(B) Civil rights claims.--An entity receiving a grant 
     under subpart 1 of part E of this title may transfer recorded 
     data collected by the law enforcement agency from a body-worn 
     camera to another law enforcement agency for use in an 
     investigation of the violation of any right, privilege, or 
     immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of 
     the United States.
       ``(g) Audit and Assessment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this part, the Director of the Office of Audit, 
     Assessment, and Management shall perform an assessment of the 
     use of funds under this section and the policies and 
     protocols of the grantees.
       ``(2) Reports.--Not later than September 1 of each year, 
     beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of this part, 
     each recipient of a grant under subpart 1 of part E of this 
     title shall submit to the Director of the Office of Audit, 
     Assessment, and Management a report that--
       ``(A) describes the progress of the body-worn camera 
     program; and
       ``(B) contains recommendations on ways in which the Federal 
     Government, States, and units of local government can further 
     support the implementation of the program.
       ``(3) Review.--The Director of the Office of Audit, 
     Assessment, and Management shall evaluate the policies and 
     protocols of the grantees and take such steps as the Director 
     of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management determines 
     necessary to ensure compliance with the program.

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

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall establish and 
     maintain a body-worn camera training toolkit for law 
     enforcement agencies, academia, and other relevant entities 
     to provide training and technical assistance, including best 
     practices for implementation, model policies and procedures, 
     and research materials.
       ``(b) Mechanism.--In establishing the toolkit required to 
     under subsection (a), the Director may consolidate research, 
     practices, templates, and tools that been developed by expert 
     and law enforcement agencies across the country.

     ``SEC. 3053. STUDY.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Police CAMERA Act of 2021, the Director 
     shall conduct a study on--
       ``(1) the efficacy of body-worn cameras in deterring 
     excessive force by law enforcement officers;
       ``(2) the impact of body-worn cameras on the accountability 
     and transparency of the use of force by law enforcement 
     officers;
       ``(3) the impact of body-worn cameras on responses to and 
     adjudications of complaints of excessive force;
       ``(4) the effect of the use of body-worn cameras on the 
     safety of law enforcement officers on patrol;
       ``(5) the effect of the use of body-worn cameras on public 
     safety;
       ``(6) the impact of body-worn cameras on evidence 
     collection for criminal investigations;
       ``(7) issues relating to the secure storage and handling of 
     recorded data from the body-worn cameras;
       ``(8) issues relating to the privacy of individuals and 
     officers recorded on body-worn cameras;
       ``(9) issues relating to the constitutional rights of 
     individuals on whom facial recognition technology is used;
       ``(10) issues relating to limitations on the use of facial 
     recognition technology;
       ``(11) issues relating to the public's access to body-worn 
     camera footage;
       ``(12) the need for proper training of law enforcement 
     officers that use body-worn cameras;
       ``(13) best practices in the development of protocols for 
     the safe and effective use of body-worn cameras;
       ``(14) a review of law enforcement agencies that found 
     body-worn cameras to be unhelpful in the operations of the 
     agencies; and
       ``(15) any other factors that the Director determines are 
     relevant in evaluating the efficacy of body-worn cameras.
       ``(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date on 
     which the study required under subsection (a) is completed, 
     the Director shall submit to Congress a report on the study, 
     which shall include any policy recommendations that the 
     Director considers appropriate.''.

         TITLE IV--CLOSING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSENT LOOPHOLE

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 402. PROHIBITION ON ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTS WHILE ACTING 
                   UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

       (a) In General.--Section 2243 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by adding at the end the 
     following: ``or by any person acting under color of law'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Of an Individual by Any Person Acting Under Color of 
     Law.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever, acting under color of law, 
     knowingly engages in a sexual act with an individual, 
     including an individual who is under arrest, in detention, or 
     otherwise in the actual custody of any Federal law 
     enforcement officer, shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.
       ``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `sexual 
     act' has the meaning given the term in section 2246.''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) In a prosecution under subsection (c), it is not a 
     defense that the other individual consented to the sexual 
     act.''.
       (b) Definition.--Section 2246 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) the term `Federal law enforcement officer' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 115.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     109A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by amending 
     the item related to section 2243 to read as follows:

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

     SEC. 403. ENACTMENT OF LAWS PENALIZING ENGAGING IN SEXUAL 
                   ACTS WHILE ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

       (a) In General.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that 
     begins after the date that is one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, in the case of a State or unit of 
     local government that does not have in effect a law described 
     in subsection (b), if that State or unit of local government 
     that would otherwise receive funds under the COPS grant 
     program, that State or unit of local government shall not be 
     eligible to receive such funds. In the case of a multi-
     jurisdictional or regional consortium, if any member of that 
     consortium is a State or unit of local government that does 
     not have in effect a law described in subsection (b), if that 
     consortium would otherwise receive funds under the COPS grant 
     program, that consortium shall not be eligible to receive 
     such funds.
       (b) Description of Law.--A law described in this subsection 
     is a law that--
       (1) makes it a criminal offense for any person acting under 
     color of law of the State or unit of local government to 
     engage in a sexual act with an individual, including an 
     individual who is under arrest, in detention, or otherwise in 
     the actual custody of any law enforcement officer; and
       (2) prohibits a person charged with an offense described in 
     paragraph (1) from asserting the consent of the other 
     individual as a defense.
       (c) Reporting Requirement.--A State or unit of local 
     government that receives a grant under the COPS grant program 
     shall submit to the Attorney General, on an annual basis, 
     information on--
       (1) the number of reports made to law enforcement agencies 
     in that State or unit of local government regarding persons 
     engaging in a sexual act while acting under color of law 
     during the previous year; and
       (2) the disposition of each case in which sexual misconduct 
     by a person acting under

[[Page H1054]]

     color of law was reported during the previous year.

     SEC. 404. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Report by Attorney General.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year 
     thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a 
     report containing--
       (1) the information required to be reported to the Attorney 
     General under section 403(b); and
       (2) information on--
       (A) the number of reports made, during the previous year, 
     to Federal law enforcement agencies regarding persons 
     engaging in a sexual act while acting under color of law; and
       (B) the disposition of each case in which sexual misconduct 
     by a person acting under color of law was reported.
       (b) Report by GAO.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to 
     Congress a report on any violations of section 2243(c) of 
     title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 402, 
     committed during the 1-year period covered by the report.

     SEC. 405. DEFINITION.

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

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. SEVERABILITY.

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

     SEC. 502. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
       (1) to limit legal or administrative remedies under section 
     1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 
     1983), section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12601), title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 
     10101 et seq.), or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.);
       (2) to affect any Federal, State, or Tribal law that 
     applies to an Indian Tribe because of the political status of 
     the Tribe; or
       (3) to waive the sovereign immunity of an Indian Tribe 
     without the consent of the Tribe.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1280.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, last summer, millions of Americans all across the 
country took to the streets to demand fundamental change in the culture 
of law enforcement and to call for meaningful accountability for 
officers who commit misconduct.
  The catalyst for these protests was the tragic and brutal death of 
George Floyd. None of us can forget the image of that officer's knee 
pinned to his neck for nearly 8 agonizing minutes, or the sound of his 
anguished pleas of ``I can't breathe'' that were ignored until his 
final breath was taken from him.
  After his death, the world awoke to daily indignities, and sometimes 
the brutality, that too many people--disproportionately Black, Latinx, 
and indigenous people, people living in poverty, and people with 
disabilities--face in their interactions with law enforcement 
throughout the country.
  We value and respect the many brave and honorable police officers who 
put their lives on the line every day to protect us and our 
communities. We know that most law enforcement officers do their jobs 
with dignity, selflessness, and honor, and they are deserving of our 
respect and gratitude for all they do to keep us safe. But we must also 
acknowledge that there are too many exceptions.
  The reality for too many Americans, especially many Black Americans, 
is that police officers are perceived as a threat to their liberties; 
to their dignity; and, too often, to their safety. Sadly, our country's 
history of racism and racially motivated violence continues to haunt 
our Nation.
  We see it in the rates of COVID deaths, in our system of mass 
incarceration, and in the vast chasm of economic inequality, all of 
which fall disproportionately on the backs of African Americans. And we 
see it in the harassment and excessive force that many people of color 
routinely experience by law enforcement.
  That is why we must act today. The George Floyd Justice in Policing 
Act would allow for meaningful accountability in cases of police 
misconduct. It also effectively bans choke holds, ends racial and 
religious profiling, ends no-knock warrants in drug cases, and limits 
the militarization of local policing.
  It encourages departments to meet a gold standard in training and 
other best practices to reduce police bias and violence. It requires 
significant data collection, including the first-ever national database 
on police-misconduct incidents to prevent the movement of dangerous 
officers from department to department.
  In addition, this legislation creates a process to reimagine how 
public safety could work in a truly equitable and just way in each 
community.
  Last summer, within weeks of the protests that galvanized the Nation, 
the House passed the legislation before us today. Unfortunately, the 
pleas for justice that rang out in the streets fell on deaf ears in the 
Senate.
  Since then, over 600 more people--disproportionately people of 
color--have been killed by law enforcement officers.
  The time for action is now.
  I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass) for crafting this 
bold, yet responsible, legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), a retired police officer.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1280, 
the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
  With something as important as police reform, it is important to 
garner many perspectives. The JUSTICE Act, legislation Senator Scott 
and I introduced, is a product of my perspective as a law enforcement 
officer from Minnesota and Senator Scott's perspective as a Black man 
from South Carolina.
  The JUSTICE Act increases body cameras and implements duty to 
intervene and deescalation training. It improves hiring and recruitment 
practices. It reinvigorates the principles of community policing to 
rebuild the relationships between law enforcement officers and the 
communities that they serve.
  The JUSTICE Act, which received bipartisan support last Congress, 
includes several critical provisions that are supported by Democrats: 
the Walter Scott Notification Act, the National Criminal Justice 
Commission Act, and the Closing the Law Enforcement Consent Loophole 
Act. It even includes legislation that Vice President Harris 
introduced, the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act.
  Unfortunately, we are not considering the JUSTICE Act today. We are, 
instead, once again, exploring political gamesmanship through H.R. 
1280.
  Now, when we voted on this legislation last year, the Democrats knew 
it was dead upon passage, but my good friends and I in the Problem 
Solvers Caucus decided that this conversation was too important to let 
go. So we worked for months with Representatives from both sides of the 
aisle, with Representatives from the Congressional Black Caucus, with 
Representatives from law enforcement and legal backgrounds, on areas 
where we could find compromise between the Justice in Policing Act and 
my bill, the JUSTICE Act.
  We discussed no-knock warrants, the 1033 program, use of force, 
record retention, and so much more. We were making such great headway. 
I truly believed that we could have put together a bipartisan package 
of reforms for our American communities that have been calling for 
change.
  Unfortunately, the other side walked away. As the election drew near, 
the priorities of my Democratic colleagues shifted. Their fight to 
retain power became more important than providing police reform for the 
American people.
  So now we are here again, Mr. Speaker, to vote on the exact same bill 
without a single change; a bill that has zero

[[Page H1055]]

input from Republicans, zero input or support from our law enforcement 
community. And I will repeat that. Zero input or support from our law 
enforcement community.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that will, no doubt, make 
our communities less safe. We all want police reform and we all want 
change, but until such time as we work together, this legislation is 
just another messaging bill from my Democrat colleagues.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Bass), the chief sponsor of this legislation.
  Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago today, Rodney King was viciously 
beaten by police officers in Los Angeles. It would be the first time 
the world would witness what African Americans had been organizing, 
marching, and trying to change for over 100 years.
  Personally, I was hopeful that once everyone saw what happens in 
Black communities, policing in America would change. I was certain no 
one would deny what they saw with their own eyes and that the officers 
would be convicted. But they were acquitted. Some were even hired by 
other police departments.
  The sad truth was, when people told their stories of abuse or even 
murder at the hands of police officers, they were simply not believed. 
The story was always the same: I was in fear of my life. I thought they 
had a gun. The person was resisting arrest. The individual attempted to 
assault me.
  That is all that was needed for the beating or murder to be 
discounted, dismissed. The individuals' lives had little value.
  Even children. These are children here. This is an 8-year-old, a 10-
year-old, a mother, and another child placed on the ground because the 
mother was suspected of stealing a car.
  Several years after Rodney King's beating, cell phone cameras were 
invented. It has taken technology and active citizen involvement to 
document and expose this reality. And now there are many tapes, many 
examples of individuals being shot and killed by officers, yet 
transformation of policing in America has still not happened.
  Passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act will be a critical 
first step--just a first step--to transform policing in America. The 
bill raises the standards for policing and holds those officers 
accountable who fail to uphold the ethic of protecting and serving 
their communities.

                              {time}  1830

  Now, I know that change is difficult, but I am certain that police 
officers who risk their lives every day are concerned about their 
profession, and they don't work in an environment where they are 
chastised for intervening when they see a fellow officer abuse a 
citizen or use deadly force when it is not necessary. And I am certain 
that police officers want to make sure that they are trained in the 
best practices in policing.
  To support officers, this legislation will create the first-ever 
national accreditation standards for the operation of police 
departments, set national standards for officers, and establish best 
practices in training, hiring, deescalation strategies, and bystander 
duty.
  For example, if officers had better training, maybe they would 
understand that just because someone can verbally express ``I can't 
breathe,'' does not mean they are faking and the officer can continue 
to press on the person's chest, back, or neck. And despite our best 
intentions, there will be some officers who cross over the line.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why this bill also includes strong 
accountability measures, both as a matter of simple justice, and to 
keep unfit officers off the street. A profession where you have the 
power to kill should be a profession that requires highly trained 
officers who are accountable to the public. That is what this bill 
accomplishes.
  Police officers are the first to say it is unfair that they are not 
trained to be social workers or healthcare providers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, the Justice in Policing Act reinvests in our 
communities.
  If this legislation had been the law of the land several years ago, 
Eric Garner and George Floyd would be alive today, because the bill 
bans choke holds.
  If the bill had been law last year, Breonna Taylor would not have 
been shot to death in her sleep, because no-knock warrants for drug 
offenses would have been illegal.
  And if a national registry had been in effect, it would have been 
revealed that the officer who killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice--
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism and 
Homeland Security Subcommittee.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed earlier this 
week that the Justice in Policing Act contains an unfunded mandate by 
requiring onerous data collection reporting from State and local law 
enforcement. This includes granular data collection on such basic law 
enforcement activities, like traffic stops. CBO estimates that this 
unfunded mandate placed on State and local law enforcement will cost 
several hundred million dollars.
  The consequences of H.R. 1280 are clear. It will drain resources away 
from important public safety activities. Instead, law enforcement 
officers will have to spend their time reporting data to Washington, 
D.C., from behind a desk. Make no mistake. This bill defunds the 
police.
  Additionally, any Member who is opposed to defunding the police 
should be opposing this bill. This legislation will also lower the mens 
rea standard when charging an officer with criminal misconduct. It 
removes qualified immunity, which will result in an ineffectual police 
force and leave our communities vulnerable to crime, and it also 
severely limits the Department of Defense's 1033 program.
  Mr. Speaker, but make no mistake, regardless of whatever else you may 
feel about this bill, this bill defunds police. We can never forget 
that. If you oppose defunding the police, you should be opposing this 
bill, like I am.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the tragic death of George Floyd has 
awakened the Nation, the world.
  Last summer, in response to a call for action from righteous 
protestors across the Nation, we had to stand up. And we know that 8 
minutes and 46 seconds are printed and imprinted in the brains of those 
around the world. There is no defunding of the police. It is standing 
up the police and the community.
  Today, we are honored that the George Floyd family did not turn to 
bitterness, but they turned to justice. Their parents, Larcenia and 
George; his daughter, Gianna; his siblings, Philonise, Zsa Zsa 
Williams, LaTonya Floyd, Rodney Floyd, Bridgett Floyd, Terrence Floyd, 
and a nephew, Brandon Williams.
  We know that we will be ending racial profiling now. We know that we 
will have qualified immunity for justice in the courts. We know that 
there will be training on racial bias. We will ban no-knock. We will 
ban choke holds. We will make sure that we end the racial profiling 
that caused George to come out of a grocery store and have someone's 
knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the world has stood up and justice is about to be rained 
on us.
  Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, as 
an original cosponsor of the legislation, and the author of several of 
its key legislative provisions, I rise in strong and enthusiastic 
support of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act of 2021, 
which marks a defining turning point in our country.
  Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that any questions that there 
continues to exist today racial double-standards, disparities, and 
system racism in policing and the administration of justice were 
conclusively laid to rest by

[[Page H1056]]

what social scientists would regard as a ``natural experiment'' that 
took place in Washington, D.C., beginning in the summer and culminating 
with the January 6, 2021, insurrection and siege of the U.S. Capitol by 
Trump seditionists incited by the 45th President of the United States.
  Mass protests and political rallies took place in Washington, D.C., 
started May 29, 2020, four days after George Floyd died in Minnesota 
after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck for more than 
eight minutes.
  By the millions, Americans took to the streets in protest to affirm 
that no longer will the people of this country tolerate or acquiesce in 
horrible policing practices that include excessive and unnecessary uses 
of lethal force that has diminished community trust of policing 
practices across the country and has angered and terrified communities 
of color who are overwhelmingly and disproportionately its innocent 
victims.
  Within days of the demonstrations, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr 
announced that multiple law enforcement agencies, including the 
National Guard, Secret Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
would ``flood the zone'' in D.C.
  Thousands of law enforcement officials, armed with tear gas, rubber 
bullets and firearms were deployed to protect the city.
  Hundreds of people were arrested, D.C. police records show.
  More than 300 were arrested on June 1, 2020, the day Attorney General 
Barr ordered law enforcement to forcefully clear peaceful protesters 
from a perimeter near the White House, making room for President Trump 
to pose for cameras while waving a Bible in front of St. John's 
Episcopal Church.
  It was the largest number of arrests recorded for any day during the 
summer of events.
  Across the nation, law enforcement made an estimated 14,000 arrests 
in 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests in the summer of 2020, 
according to the Washington Post.
  Following the November 3, 2020, election of Joe Eiden and running 
mate Kamala Harris, large groups of Trump supporters held rallies in 
the city, where they clashed with counter-protesters.
  Police made 20 arrests during the so-called Million MAGA March on 
November 14, 2020, an event in which Trump-supporters, including White 
nationalists, far-right extremist groups, and conservative politicians 
gathered in D.C. to protest the election results.
  And, incredibly, only 61 arrests were made of rioters, who were 
overwhelming white and who used violence, that stormed the Capitol on 
January 6, an attack that claimed the lives of at least six persons, 
injured hundreds of others, caused horrific damage to property and 
national treasures, and inflicted emotional scars that will not heal 
for generations.
  But most of these arrests are related to charges involving curfew 
violations--D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser announced a 6 p.m. curfew, though 
mobs had broken into the Capitol hours earlier, around 1:30 p.m.
  There were only four non-curfew-related arrests, compared to 40 non-
curfew-related arrests during Black Lives Matter protests on June 1, 
2020.
  Mr. Speaker, the horrifying killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 
by a Minneapolis police office shocked and awakened the moral 
consciousness of the nation.
  Untold millions saw the terrifying last 8:46 of life drained from a 
Black man, George Floyd, taking his last breaths face down in the 
street with his neck under the knee of a police officer who, along with 
his three cohorts, was indifferent to his cries for help and pleas that 
he ``can't breathe.''
  In direct response, for past several months civil protests against 
police brutality have occurred nightly in cities large and small all 
across the nation.
  These protests were a direct reaction to the horrific killing of 
George Floyd but are most motivated by a deep-seated anger and 
frustration to the separate and unequal justice African Americans 
receive at the hands of too many law enforcement officers.
  The civil disobedience witnessed nightly in the streets of America 
were also in memory of countless acts of the inequality and cruelty 
visited upon young African American men and women no longer with us in 
body but forever with us in memory.
  Beloved souls like Breanna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky; Eric 
Garner and Sean Bell in New York City; 12-year old Tamir Rice in 
Cleveland; and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
  They remember the senseless killings as well of Ahmaud Arbery and 
Trayvon Martin by self-appointed vigilantes.
  Stephon Clark, was an unarmed 22-year-old African American male from 
Sacramento, California, who was shot 23 times and killed by two 
uniformed members of the Sacramento Police Department on Sunday 
afternoon, March 18, 2018, in his grandmother's backyard, leaving 
behind two small children because police officers claim that he had a 
gun but no weapon was found at the scene, only a cell phone.
  In August 2019, Elijah McClain, a 23-year-old African American man, 
was simply listening to music while walking home from a convenience 
store when he was stopped without basis by officers of the Aurora, 
Colorado Police Department, put into a carotid hold and given multiple 
doses of ketamine, which caused cardiac arrest from which he fell into 
a coma and died three days later.
  And the continuing need for their activism was reflected in the 
recent outrage, which began on June 12, 2020, and ended in the 
senseless slaughter of Rayshard Brooks, who was simply sleeping in his 
car at a local Wendy's restaurant, by a uniformed officer of the 
Atlanta Police Department.
  It was reflected again on August 23, 2020, when a Kenosha Police 
Department officer shot Jacob S. Blake, a 29-year-old black man, in the 
back seven times--yes seven--as he attempted to enter his SUV where 
three of his young sons were in the back seat.
  We know the pain and heartbreak in my home state of Texas and the 
City of Houston where Robbie Tolan's promising Major League Baseball 
was career was cut short after being shot by Bellaire Police Department 
officer in the front yard of his parents' home.
  And Sandra Bland, a 28-year-old African American female who was 
arrested after a traffic stop just outside of Houston, Texas, and found 
dead in a Waller County jail cell three days later.
  Or Pamela Turner, an unarmed 44-year old African American mother of 
three who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, who was killed outside 
her home in Baytown, Texas, by an officer of the Baytown Police 
Department, on Monday, May 13, 2019, the day after Mother's Day.
  Or Jordan Baker, an unarmed 26-year-old African American male from 
Houston, Texas, who was shot to death by an off-duty uniformed member 
of the Houston Police Department in the parking lot of a Harris County 
shopping mall on January 16, 2014.
  Or Danny Ray Thomas, an unarmed 34-year-old African American male, 
who was shot to death by a uniformed officer of the Harris County 
Sheriffs Department on March 22, 2018, in Houston, Texas.
  Indeed, the history goes back much further, past Amidou Diallo in New 
York City, past the Central Park Five, past Emmitt Till, past the 
racist abuse of law enforcement power during the struggle for civil 
rights and equal treatment.
  Mr. Speaker, the times we are in demand that action be taken and that 
is precisely what my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, on 
this committee, and Congressional Democrats did in introducing H.R. 
1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.
  And we are taking the next bold action today in voting to pass this 
legislation and send it to the Senate and on to the White House for 
presidential signature and enactment.
  I support this bold legislation not just as a senior member of the 
House Judiciary Committee, who also served on the House Working Group 
on Police Strategies, but also a mother of a young African American 
male who knows the anxiety that African American mothers feel until 
they can hug their sons and daughters who return home safely, and on 
behalf of all those relatives and friends who grieve over the loss a 
loved one whose life and future was wrongly and cruelly interrupted or 
ended by mistreatment at the hands of the police.

  The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 is designed to 
destroy the pillars of systemic racism in policing practices that has 
victimized communities of color, and especially African Americans for 
decades, is overdue, too long overdue.
  This legislation puts the Congress of the United States on record 
against racial profiling in policing and against the excessive, 
unjustified, and discriminatory use of lethal and force by law 
enforcement officers against persons of color.
  The legislation means no longer will employment of practices that 
encourage systemic mistreatment of persons because of their race be 
ignored or tolerated.
  With our vote today to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act 
of 2021, the government of the United States is declaring firmly, 
forcefully, and unequivocally that Black Lives Matter.
  It is true all lives matter, they always have.
  But that Black lives matter too, and in so many other areas of civic 
life, this nation has not always lived up to its promise but that the 
promise is worthy of fulfilling.
  Every African American parent, and every African America child, knows 
all too well `The Talk' and the importance of abiding by the rules for 
surviving interactions with the police.
  While many police officers take this responsibility seriously and 
strive to treat all persons

[[Page H1057]]

equally and with respect, their efforts are too often undermined by 
some of their colleagues who abuse the enormous trust and confidence 
placed in them.
  And systemically racist systems and practices left in place can 
corrupt even the most virtuous police officers.
  So, the most important criminal justice reforms needed to improve the 
criminal justice system are those that will increase public confidence 
and build trust and mutual respect between law enforcement and the 
communities they swear an oath and are willing to risk their lives to 
protect and serve.
  That is the overriding purpose and aim of the George Floyd Justice in 
Policing Act of 2021, which contains numerous provisions to weed out 
and eliminate systemic racism in police practices.
  Specifically, this legislation holds police accountable in our courts 
by:
  Amending the mens rea requirement in federal law (18 U.S.C. Section 
242) to prosecute police misconduct from ``willfulness'' to a 
``recklessness'' standard;
  Reforming qualified immunity so that individuals are not barred from 
recovering damages when police violate their constitutional rights;
  Incentivizing state attorneys general to conduct pattern and practice 
investigations and improving the use of pattern and practice 
investigations at the federal level by granting the Department of 
Justice Civil Rights Division subpoena power;
  Incentivizing states to create independent investigative structures 
for police involved deaths; and
  Creating best practices recommendations based on the Obama 21st 
Century Policing Task force.
  As recognized by scholars at Cato--the conservative think tank Cato--
the time has come to abolish qualified immunity.
  According to Cato, ``qualified immunity is a legally baseless 
judicial invention'' that has ``proven unworkable as a matter of 
judicial doctrine,'' and ``routinely denies justice to the victims of 
egregious misconduct and undermines public accountability across the 
board, especially for members of law enforcement.''
  I am particularly pleased that the George Floyd Justice in Policing 
Act includes the End Racial Profiling Now Act, which I introduced to 
ban the pernicious practice of racial profiling.
  In addition, I am proud that this legislation includes as Title I, 
Subtitle B, the bipartisan and bicameral George Floyd Law Enforcement 
Trust and Integrity Act, which I introduced with Congressman Jason Crow 
of Colorado in the 116th Congress as H.R. 7100.
  This legislation provides incentives for local police organizations 
to voluntarily adopt performance-based standards to ensure that 
incidents of deadly force or misconduct will be minimized through 
appropriate management and training protocols and properly 
investigated, should they occur.
  The legislation directs the Department of Justice to work 
cooperatively with independent accreditation, law enforcement and 
community-based organizations to further develop and refine the 
accreditation standards and grants conditional authority to the 
Department of Justice to make grants to law enforcement agencies for 
the purpose of obtaining accreditation from certified law enforcement 
accreditation organizations.
  As I have stated many times, direct action is vitally important but 
to be effective it must be accompanied by political, legislative, and 
governmental action, which is necessary because the strength and 
foundation of democratic government rests upon the consent and 
confidence of the governed.
  Effective enforcement of the law and administration of justice 
requires the confidence of the community that the law will be enforced 
impartially and that all persons are treated equally without regard to 
race or ethnicity or religion or national origin.
  As the great jurist Judge Learned Hand said: ``If we are to keep our 
democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not ration 
justice.''
  Equal justice is the proud promise America makes to all persons; the 
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 will help make that 
promise a lived reality for African Americans, who have not ever known 
it to be true in the area of community-police relations.
  And when Black Lives Matter, then and only then can it truthfully be 
said that all lives matter.
  Finally, let me say a few words in memory of the man whose sacrifice 
of his inalienable right to life has galvanized the world and awakened 
the sleeping giant of moral decency.
  Mr. Speaker, let me pay tribute to the person for whom this 
legislation is named and to his family.
  George Floyd, also known lovingly as ``Big Floyd,'' ``Perry,'' or 
``The Gentle Giant,'' loved life, his family, friends, and community 
and throughout his life used his love of sports and music to leave a 
positive impact on this world.
  Mr. Speaker, rather than giving in to bitterness and hate, the family 
of George Floyd has channeled the pain and heartbreak of the tragic 
loss of their beloved George into the creation of a force for good: The 
George Floyd Memorial Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit, to 
promote global awareness about racial injustice and provide 
opportunities for others to contribute to the unification of our 
communities and touch the world.
  Let me thank each member of the Floyd family and list them by name: 
his parents, Larcenia Jones-Floyd and George Perry Floyd, Sr.; his 
daughter, Gianna Floyd; his siblings Philonise Floyd, Zsa Zsa Williams, 
LaTonya Floyd, Rodney Floyd, Bridget Floyd, Terrence Floyd; and nephew, 
Brandon ``WOO'' Williams.
  Mr. Speaker, in Acts 2:23 of the Scriptures it is written that ``This 
man was handed over to you by God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge; 
and you with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to 
the cross.''
  Duty calls us to to improve the quality of policing in America.
  We cannot agitate for change one day and then allow things to remain 
the same, to allow wicked men to keep committing this crime against 
humanity.
  This behavior did not begin with George Floyd; there is a 400-year 
history here, from slave patrols, to Jim Crow to Bull Connor to the 
modern-day lynching of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek 
Chauvin.
  But the good news is that right is on our side; God has stepped in.
  In John 1:46 it is said, ``can anything good come out of Nazareth?''
  When he was growing up, I am sure there were people who saw George 
Floyd and asked can anything good come out of the Third Ward of 
Houston?
  We now know the answer is clearly yes.
  George Floyd was here in service to God's divine plan.
  And as his daughter Gianna said, her Daddy changed the world.
  Thank you, George Floyd for what you have done for us, for helping us 
find our voice and our resolve.
  We will not let you down; we will finish the job.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentlewoman just said that there was no defunding of the police. 
I would just point out Democrat-controlled cities around the country:
  Austin, Texas, $150 million cut;
  Baltimore, Maryland, $22 million;
  Boston, $12 million;
  Burlington, $1 million;
  Columbus, $23 million;
  Denver, $55 million;
  Eureka, California, $1.2 million;
  Hartford, $2 million;
  Los Angeles, $175 million;
  Madison, Wisconsin, $2 million;
  Minneapolis, $8 million;
  New York, $1 billion;
  Norman, $865,000;
  Oakland, $14.6 million;
  Oklahoma City, $5.5 million;
  Philadelphia, $33 million;
  Portland, Oregon, $15 million;
  Salt Lake City, $5.3 million;
  San Francisco, $120 million;
  Seattle, $69 million;
  Washington, D.C., $15 million cut.
  That is what Democrats have done over the last year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1280.
  I spent the last week talking to law enforcement officers in Utah. 
These men and women are heroes. They are good, honest officers who risk 
their lives every day to keep us safe.
  I asked them about H.R. 1280, and this is what they said:
  ``This will destroy public safety.''
  ``We haven't done anything to earn this type of distrust.''
  ``This will push good law enforcement out of the business.''
  ``Utah is an amazing place. We have the right people protecting us. 
Let's keep them here.''
  Mr. Speaker, police reform is necessary. We need to give officers the 
tools they need to fairly enforce the law. But this legislation paints 
a target on the back of every police officer in America.
  In Salt Lake City, we saw a 38 percent increase in homicides. At the 
same time, Salt Lake cut $5.3 million from the police department's 
budget. It should be no surprise that voluntary resignations doubled. 
This bill will make good officers flee the profession when we need them 
most.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats won't say this, but this bill simply defunds 
the police. Not in Utah's Fourth District; not now; not ever.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that this bill does

[[Page H1058]]

not--all the cities that we talked about, it does not mention any 
cities.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act.
  I started my career as the legal adviser to the Memphis Police 
Department. There were many fine policemen, and most of them never used 
a choke hold, never used their gun, and operated admirably. Some did 
not.
  The disproportionate share that African Americans have suffered from 
killings by police shows we need to act. You can't think about George 
Floyd being choked with a knee and killed for 8 minutes. You can't 
think of Eric Garner being wrestled down like a prize trophy animal and 
killed in Staten Island, or young Tamir Rice, shot without an officer 
taking a second to think about it.
  Mr. Speaker, these deaths require us to act. This is not defund the 
police. This is reform the police and save human lives. We need to pass 
this bill today. We should have passed it 40 years ago when I was a 
police attorney. Pass it now.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition 
to the efforts by you and your colleagues to defund our police.
  This week we will be voting on H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in 
Policing Act. This bill is named after a man who was murdered by a 
police officer. The officer responsible should have never been allowed 
to don a badge and act on behalf of the agency sworn to protect its 
citizens. He should and is being held accountable.
  Now, as a member of a first responder family, I can say definitively 
on behalf of our officers that there is absolutely nothing, nothing 
that a good cop hates more than a bad cop. And as the wife of a first 
responder, this issue could not be more personal to me.
  Mr. Speaker, my husband serves our local community as a firefighter 
and a SWAT medic for our local sheriff's department. And next to me 
here today, you see one of his SWAT vests.
  This is the same vest that he wore for 14 hours while on a massive 
manhunt for a man who had just been released from prison, who promptly 
raped and killed his girlfriend.
  It is the same vest that he wore while responding to a man who had 
barricaded himself with weapons, threatening to kill his own children.
  These are just some of the scenes that this vest and my husband have 
seen, like so many of our LEOs. But the real threat here is not the 
dangerous situations that my husband has seen in protecting his 
community, it is the fact that this bill--and by extension, you, Mr. 
Speaker--want to take this vest off my husband's back because, yes, 
what this bill does is take this kind of equipment off the backs of our 
men and women in uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues who are considering voting 
for this bill:
  Are you waking up at 2 a.m. to respond to a gruesome murder?
  Are you missing your children's birthday parties to respond to gang 
shootings?
  There is absolutely room for us to improve. There is absolutely room 
and a necessity for us to do better. But the answer is not to defund 
the police. It is not the answer. What this bill ultimately does is 
defund the police.
  You want a better trained, more responsive police force in your 
hometown? Fully fund the police. You say this is a reform bill, and I 
say that is BS.
  Mr. Speaker, your own conference members have been advocating for the 
defunding of our local police officers, calling them names that I 
cannot and will not repeat here today. In fact, many of your members 
have made it a top priority of their platforms.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, George Floyd died under the knee of a 
police officer 302 days ago. In the time since then, 797 people--more 
than 2\1/2\ every day--have died during encounters with law 
enforcement.
  Black Americans are 2\1/2\ times as likely as White Americans to be 
killed by the police. Police use of force is now the sixth-leading 
cause of death for young Black men in this country. This cannot 
continue. It is time to address systemic racism in policing.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will begin to do that. It ends choke holds. It 
will hold bad officers accountable, combat racial profiling, and 
demilitarize police departments. This bill is about ensuring 
accountability and restoring trust between law enforcement and their 
communities. Both the police and the community deserve that and will 
benefit from it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  And I would say, there has been a lot of discussion about defunding 
the police. The only party in this Chamber defunding the police are the 
Republicans, who just voted against billions of dollars to support 
local and State government, first responders, police officers. We 
supported that. We are funding the police. They voted to defund it.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill restores relationships between the police and 
the community, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Gimenez).
  Mr. GIMENEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
egregious, so-called police reform bill. The process used to craft this 
bill is nonsense.
  In a normal functioning Congress, the Speaker would bring together 
Republicans and Democrats to discuss ways to push needed police 
reforms. But in this dysfunctional Congress, we got a bill that strips 
our frontline police officers from qualified immunity, that will weaken 
and possibly destroy our communities' police forces.
  Mr. Speaker, as mayor and sheriff of Miami-Dade County, and a former 
SWAT medic myself, I was actually responsible for ensuring my community 
was kept safe from lawlessness. I understand firsthand the importance 
of qualified immunity for police officers to carry out their jobs.
  Officers perform vital tasks requiring split-second decisions under 
intense circumstances. Taking away qualified immunity will lead to 
police officers not taking the decisive actions and rendering it 
impossible for them to do their job. Without this security, officers 
will resign and deplete our police force, leaving our communities--the 
very ones who need a strong police force the most--less safe and 
costing the lives of countless Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this 
dangerous bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the George 
Floyd Justice in Policing Act and to say Black Lives Matter.
  I rise for Charleena Lyles, Che Taylor, Manuel Ellis, Tommy Le, Tony 
McDade, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Atatiana Jefferson, 
Ezell Ford, Tanisha Anderson, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Philando 
Castile, Gabriella Nevarez, Botham Jean.
  I rise for all of our Black siblings who have been killed by law 
enforcement, because there are far too many to say all of their names.
  I rise for the Black Lives Matter protestors who were met with 
aggression, tear gas, and force while White domestic terrorists were 
met with none of these things.
  I rise to answer the call of millions of people led by Black voices 
who have taken to the streets demanding transformative change.
  I rise because that change begins today by once again passing the 
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Steube).
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our Nation's law 
enforcement. Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called 
children of God.
  Mr. Speaker, since last summer, members of law enforcement have faced 
attacks and dangerous rhetoric, even from Members of this body. As 
officers put their lives on the line to protect all of us, our 
communities, and our families, we have seen nothing but

[[Page H1059]]

dangerous attempts from the left to defund, dismantle, and disband the 
police even as we stand here today, surrounded by razor wire, the 
National Guard and increased police presence to protect you, but you 
don't want them to protect our citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would end qualified immunity. Qualified 
immunity is only applicable when they follow their training and 
protocol and protects officers from being personally sued for official 
actions. If we repeal qualified immunity, we will not find anyone 
willing to serve as police officers because they can be sued out of 
everything they own for doing their jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, if that is not enough, this bill would threaten our 
officers' physical safety by denying them protective gear and 
equipment. The Democrats and radical left are going to defund and 
dismantle departments and take away officers' liability protection for 
doing their job. Then they are going to take away their physical 
protection from harm. We will be lucky to have a police force in 
America in 10 years.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of our many officers in 
Georgia's Sixth Congressional District, here in the Capitol, and those 
nationwide who do all that they can to keep our families safe.
  They have the trust of their communities and, as a result, are better 
at ensuring everyone's safety. These officers know the people that they 
serve. They see them as brothers, sisters, and neighbors. They serve 
with honor and respect the dignity of every citizen.
  This bill is about making sure that every officer and every 
department is held to the same standard as has been set by the officers 
in my own district.
  Mr. Speaker, by passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, we 
invest in our departments, end harmful profiling, and provide grants to 
communities finding new and innovative ways to improve safety.
  This bill ensures all of our police officers have the resources to 
become our very best police officers, and that they are all working to 
make sure that every single one of us is safer.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, whenever the left takes control of local 
law enforcement, the result is predictable and catastrophic. They act 
to defund the police, deliberately withhold police protection from law-
abiding shopkeepers and citizens, declare sanctuaries for criminal 
illegal aliens, decline to charge criminals, and prevent law-abiding 
citizens from protecting themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, we are now suffering the result: skyrocketing homicides, 
shootings, and other violent crimes, preying most of all upon the 
decent citizens of our inner cities. Now, after their summer of love 
and lawlessness, look at the results. Their storefronts are boarded up. 
Their buildings are burned out. Their streets are increasingly 
surrendered to the lawless.
  Frankly, the Democrats in Congress that have applauded these policies 
would not be my first choice to micromanage every police department 
across our country as this bill does; just saying.
  The ultimate target of the left is not isolated abuses by law 
enforcement officers but, rather, law enforcement itself. As we can now 
see, without law enforcement, there is no law.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times the other side says 
that this bill will defund the police, it does not make it true.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it would be an irresponsible policy to defund 
the police. We are not for that.
  Hear me. You can say it over and over and over again. It will be a 
lie. No matter how well it serves your political purposes, it will be a 
lie.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to 
thank Representative Bass and members of the Congressional Black Caucus 
for their leadership last year and now. I also want to thank my friend, 
Chairman Nadler, and the Judiciary Committee for their hard work.
  I am proud to be an original sponsor. If I thought this defunded the 
police, I would not be for it. Now, that won't affect you and your 
debate, I understand that, any more than it affected you in recognizing 
the legitimacy of the Presidential election.
  I am proud to be an original sponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, in June of last year, the House passed this bill because 
we recognized that something had to change. Change could not wait. 
Change waited too long in the Jim Crow South. Change has waited too 
long throughout this country--North, East, West, and South.
  Mr. Speaker, when we mournfully say the names of George Floyd, 
Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Philando Castile, Freddie 
Gray, with a list that goes on and on and on and on, enough, my 
colleagues, enough.
  We must change the psychology of how we treat people. I don't mean 
police alone. I mean all of us, but all of us don't carry guns. All of 
us have not been given extraordinary authority by the public we serve. 
Because we give certain people in this country extraordinary authority 
to take our freedom away and, yes, to take our lives away, we must 
ensure accountability for the use of that power, just as the voters 
ought to ensure accountability for the power that they give to us.
  When we hear about African American parents having to teach their 
sons how to act during encounters with police so that they, too, don't 
become victims, it is time for change. When we feel the energy of many 
millions of Americans of every race, every faith, and every age taking 
peacefully to the streets in protest against injustice, we know that 
change must come now.
  I know how you lament the use of violence. I saw that on January 6.
  Mr. Speaker, peaceful demonstrations, Martin Luther King was locked 
up. Rosa Parks was locked up. For a crime? Of course, Parks sat in the 
front of the bus. That was illegal. As King said, an illegal law ought 
not to be obeyed.
  Mr. Speaker, they paid the consequences. They had the courage and 
fortitude to do that.
  That is why we took action last year, passing the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act. This legislation addresses police choke holds 
like the kind that took George Floyd's life. Stand if you can justify 
that action.
  Mr. Speaker, it addresses no-knock warrants like the one that led to 
the tragic and preventable death of Breonna Taylor. It would condition 
Federal funding and resources to police departments on ending racial 
profiling. Content of character, did we not learn that lesson? It is 
not the color of your skin, the cut of the cloth you wear, or the part 
in your hair.
  Mr. Speaker, we ask them to follow best practices with that power and 
authority we have given them, best practices in police training that 
help ensure the rights of those who encounter police, as well as the 
safety of all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill also brings justice to victims and their 
families by facilitating, under appropriate circumstances, their 
ability to seek redress of grievances.
  This bill is not only intended to protect people who encounter the 
police, but it is meant to help keep police safe as well, to help them 
do the difficult job of keeping their communities safe.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this body, I think I can safely 
say, who has attended more frequently the annual National Law 
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund ceremony. I am local, but I dare say 
that no Member in this body has attended that more frequently, been 
more supportive of law enforcement, or been more supportive of my local 
sheriffs and police departments. They are critically important. Of 
course, we don't want to defund them. We have to have a safe society if 
democracy is going to prevail. That is why we have law enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard from so many law enforcement officials who 
are deeply concerned about misconduct and racial bias in policing, just 
as each one of us ought to be concerned about a politician who commits 
a crime. Why? It reflects on all of us. All of those politicians are 
crooks. Somebody out there is saying amen.
  That is why this is important, because there are so many hundreds of 
thousands of honest, hardworking, courageous, dedicated police 
officers, sheriffs, and constables in this country.

[[Page H1060]]

  Mr. Speaker, most police officers are good and decent men and women, 
serving with honor. They want to know that their ranks are free from 
those who would apply bias and sow mistrust that endangers their and 
their colleagues' safety. This is just the beginning of a larger effort 
to reform policing, which will require the Senate and White House to 
work with us to ensure that victims of misconduct and their families 
get the justice they deserve, while police departments have the 
support, the funding, if you will, they need to keep our communities 
safe.
  Mr. Speaker, sadly, when we passed this bill last year, the 
Republican-controlled Senate refused even to consider it. They were in 
charge. They put no bill of their own on the floor. I apologize. I 
retract that. Mr. Jordan is correct.
  Now, however, with this Democratic Senate majority, I hope I can see 
action, work with Senator Scott, and come to a resolution, because this 
problem will not go away if we don't help it. We will not save lives if 
we don't act.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a top priority for Senate Democrats, 
as well as for President Biden and Vice President Harris. So, I hope 
that we will not only see the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act pass 
the House today but also be signed into law this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a necessary bill to respond to a crisis 
throughout our country, certainly not by every member of law 
enforcement, but by the minority of law enforcement officers, just as 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are a credit to the service in 
this House, not all, but the overwhelming majority.
  Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill. Let's act for justice.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair and not to each other.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority leader just said: Enough, my colleagues, 
enough.
  I couldn't agree more.
  Last summer, Democrats called for unrest in the streets. They raised 
bail money for rioters. They called antifa a myth. They voted and 
pushed for defunding the police all across this country.
  Guess what? When you call for unrest in the streets while there is 
unrest in the streets, guess what happens?
  You get more unrest in the streets.
  When you raise money to bail out rioters, guess what happens?
  You get more rioters.
  When you call antifa a myth, guess what happens?
  You get more attacks on property and on people.
  Guess what also happens when you call for defunding the police?
  You get more crime.
  And when you fail to condemn violence--all violence, whether it 
happens on January 6 or last summer--you get more violence.
  Everyone understands that. Everyone should understand that, but it 
seems Democrats don't.
  We had a bill in the House, just like Senator Scott's bill, and 
Representative Stauber was the sponsor. Last year, when we had a 
markup, we offered 12 amendments in committee. They wouldn't take any 
of them. Some of the amendments, the Democrats actually supported them. 
But nope, nope, got to be this bill.
  They didn't want to work with us to deal with the real concern, 
because we all know what happened to Mr. Floyd was as wrong as wrong 
could be. We were willing to work, but, no, they wouldn't take any of 
our amendments and said the things they said last summer. We should 
work together on this, but they don't want to. They don't want to do 
it.
  They want their own bill. They don't want Republicans to vote for it. 
They want to play politics. We would actually like to solve the 
problem. We would actually like to solve the problem.
  You know what else happens when you call for defunding the police?
  The police retire. There is a 72 percent increase in retirement of 
police officers in New York City alone. Think of what it is like around 
the country. That is what happens when you send the message that 
Democrats sent all last summer. It is wrong. We shouldn't stand for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, Officer Tiffany-Victoria Enriquez, Officer 
Kaulike Kalama, Sheriff Sheldon Gordon Whiteman, Officer Katherine Mary 
Thyne, I could go on and on 113 times with the names of law enforcement 
officers who died in the line of duty, who were killed last year in 
2020--113.
  And we are on the floor of the House of Representatives with a bill 
gutting the qualified immunity that helps protect our law enforcement 
officers without so much as a hearing, without so much as coming back 
to talk to us and work with us since last June.
  Why?
  Because this is all political. This is all political.
  We talk about defunding. I am from Austin, Texas; $150 million cut 
from the police budget there.
  And what did my Democrat colleagues do last Friday?
  Jammed through $500 billion for State and local governments, funding 
the very Democratic cities that are gutting our law enforcement 
officers, taking away what they need to be able to exist.
  And with what happened in Austin, a 50 percent increase in murder 
rate. We lost the greatest cadet class we had.
  This bill is a sham. We should oppose it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times Republicans may say 
the contrary, Democrats have never called for defunding the police.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, we respect every single officer who has 
died in the line of duty.
  The question is: Why don't you respect those Black and Latino 
individuals who were shot in the back, choked to death, beaten nearly 
unconscious, or have a knee to the neck, strangling the life out of 
them for 8 minutes and 46 seconds? Why don't you respect them?
  That is what the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is all about.
  We respect police officers, those who protect and serve; but we have 
a challenge with police violence, police brutality. The police abuse of 
force cannot be denied, video after video after video. Don't believe 
us, believe your own eyes.
  Thirty years ago, Rodney King was beaten on this very day, and we 
thought it would be different. But 30 years later, nothing has changed 
in terms of accountability and reining in those officers who cross the 
line.
  It is time to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, and do 
it now.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores the harm that anti-law 
enforcement rhetoric and unchecked violence have inflicted on our 
communities and our police.
  Since last year, we have seen businesses and communities terrorized, 
burned, and looted by criminal gangs and thugs, while some elected 
officials justified the violence, called for defunding the police, and 
moved to tie the hands of law enforcement. In essence, lawlessness 
prevailed and accountability failed. This legislation doubles down on 
that failed policy.
  In my home State of Wisconsin, we watched city officials in Madison, 
Kenosha, and Milwaukee stand by as violent rioters destroyed property, 
monuments, shops, and livelihoods. Sheriffs in my home State tell me 
they are having significant retention and recruiting issues. This will 
only exacerbate that. It is a back door to the misguided defund the 
police efforts. Defunding the police does not make the police safer.

  Mr. Speaker, this bill empowers criminals, while stripping cops of 
the tools they need to do their jobs and due process guaranteed to them 
by the Constitution. It exposes law enforcement officers and their 
families to potential retribution by criminals.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).
  Ms. OMAR. Mr. Speaker, I, like so many in my community of 
Minneapolis, are still traumatized. I watched horrified for 8 minutes 
and 46 seconds as George Floyd's life was

[[Page H1061]]

taken from him, another innocent Black man murdered by the police in 
our community.
  Time and time again, we have witnessed the people who are sworn to 
protect our communities abuse their power. My city is not an outlier, 
but, rather, an example of the inequalities our country has struggled 
with for centuries. Brutality against unarmed Black men and women is 
not a new phenomenon.
  Today, we find ourselves at a crossroad. Will we have the moral 
courage to pursue justice and secure meaningful change? Or will we 
succumb to this moment?
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again: about to vote on a divisive bill being 
pushed through by the majority without any Republican input. Disguised 
as accountability, this bill hinders law enforcement's ability to do 
their jobs, limits the readiness of law enforcement, and demonizes an 
entire profession for the actions of a few.
  A bill from my Minnesota colleague, Mr. Stauber, a former police 
officer himself, accomplishes many of the aims of this bill before us 
today, and has bipartisan support from the stakeholders involved; but 
Democrats rejected it, picking partisanship over real reform to help 
and improve law enforcement.
  We do not deny there is work to be done, but the path to getting it 
done is working together to ensure that law enforcement developed the 
necessary tools to keep our communities safe and protect the rights of 
people they serve.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to work on a 
bill that will really help law enforcement and the citizens.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
  Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, any man's death diminishes me. We will never 
forget, the world will never forget, as we watched as a police officer 
knelt on George Floyd's neck for more than 8 minutes.
  George Floyd cried out for his mother, saying ``Mama, mama, mama, 
mama, mama, mama, mama, I can't breathe. I love you. Tell my kids I 
love them. I am dead.''
  As he was murdered by an officer sworn to protect and serve, 
Americans of all races and backgrounds flooded the streets all across 
this Nation, demanding long overdue accountability so that no one has 
to live in fear of the police.
  They demanded that we recognize George Floyd's death and the deaths 
of so many others at the hands of the police. These killings have left 
the Black community and, much more importantly, our entire community 
traumatized and scared. Wounds cannot heal without accountability.
  This is not an anti-police bill. The George Floyd Justice in Policing 
Act is for Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, Elijah McClain, and 
so many more.
  Any man's death diminishes me.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
1280 and defunding the police.
  When vandalism and violence plagued cities across the country last 
summer, our law enforcement officers were the thin blue line protecting 
us. The violence reached communities from New York City to Portland. It 
even hit places in my district, and we saw our local law enforcement 
act heroically.
  Unfortunately, as both the son and father of law enforcement 
officials, this bill is a step in the wrong direction. The bill 
substantially reduces due process for police officers, restricts access 
to needed equipment, and makes it more difficult to get critical 
funding.
  Our law enforcement officers need more funding, not less. More 
funding will help our officers get additional training to deescalate 
conflicts and get more equipment to keep all parties safe. Instead of 
focusing on how we can help the police build trust in the communities, 
this bill focuses on how we can take from the police.

  Clearly, the bill is designed to satisfy those that seek to defund 
and dismantle the police. None of this bill serves to build trust 
between law enforcement and their communities. Like every occupation, 
law enforcement has bad apples that must be held accountable.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the 
distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding and for 
his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor.
  I commend Congresswoman Karen Bass for her great leadership in this 
important legislation.
  Madam Speaker, nearly 1 year ago, George Floyd gasped his last words, 
``I can't breathe,'' and ignited a nationwide reckoning on the racial 
injustice and police brutality in America.
  Americans from every corner of the country took to the streets to 
peacefully protest violence against Black Americans: waving Black Lives 
Matter flags, chanting the names of the murdered, repeating George 
Floyd's dying words, ``I can't breathe.'' They turned their agony into 
action.
  But, tragically, despite these mass protests, the injustice, the 
killing, continues. Those protests were global. They were all over the 
world.
  Here, as Members of Congress, and as Americans, we cannot accept this 
epidemic of injustice. We cannot stay silent when our most vulnerable 
and historically marginalized communities--people of color, those 
living in poverty, Americans with disabilities--are being targeted and 
sometimes killed.
  That is why today the House will again pass the George Floyd Justice 
in Policing Act and send it to the Senate and the President's desk, so 
that it can finally become the law of the land.

                              {time}  1915

  I salute Congresswoman Karen Bass, who has been relentless, 
persistent, and absolutely courageous in her leadership on this 
legislation. I thank the Congressional Black Caucus and its 
chairperson, Joyce Beatty; and Judiciary chair, Jerry Nadler.
  The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act fundamentally transforms the 
culture of policing with strong, unprecedented reform. This legislation 
will not erase centuries of systemic racism and excessive policing in 
America. It will not bring back George Floyd, Breonna Taylor--say her 
name, Breonna Taylor--Ahmaud Arbery, or the countless other men and 
women who died or were senselessly injured. But it will take a 
tremendous step forward to stop the violence, stem the suffering, and 
start to build a healthier and better relationship between law 
enforcement and communities that they protect.
  All of us here salute and are profoundly grateful for our law 
enforcement heroes. I grew up in a public service family. My father, my 
whole life at home, was the mayor of Baltimore. My brother was mayor 
later, Thomas D'Alesandro, in Baltimore. They had a motto about the 
police: Be true to the men in blue.
  Of course, this was a long time ago. Be true to the men in blue. I 
was raised with that respect.
  But then, prayerfully, these people, our men and women--now men and 
women--in uniform, whether they are police or fire, but addressing 
police here, our first responders left home when they left to go to 
work, not knowing, and their families not knowing, if they would return 
home because they were risking their lives to save lives and to protect 
all of us. So it was with great prayerful gratitude to most of the men 
and women in blue that we, sadly, have to say that our appreciation for 
them cannot lapse into apathy or acceptance of actions that are 
fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of policing.
  Of course, there is not anyone on our side of the aisle who has 
advocated any policy in this body to defund the police, contrary to 
misrepresentations that are coming forth. All of us here, again, salute 
and are profoundly grateful for our law enforcement heroes.
  As the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives 
writes:

       The passage of this act is paramount in achieving the 
     fundamental principle of a police force that ``protects and 
     serves'' every

[[Page H1062]]

     citizen of their community with fairness, accountability, and 
     transparency in their actions.

  The Democratic Congress, together with the Biden-Harris 
administration, is committed to not only ensuring that this legislation 
becomes law, but to take further action to end violence and advance 
justice in America. Let us ensure that the passage of the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act is the first of many steps in this direction.
  The family of George Floyd, who came here when the bill was being 
reviewed by Chairman Nadler's committee, asked me: Madam Speaker, will 
you name this bill for our brother?
  His brother asked that question. The gentleman remembers that day. We 
couldn't be in the committee room because of COVID.
  I said: Only if you think it is worthy of your brother.
  I think of George Floyd at least once a day and sometimes more.
  Do you know why?
  Not just because of the sadness of it all, but I think of him because 
they tell us that, in order to be safe from COVID, we must wash our 
hands for 20 seconds. So as I'm washing my hands for 20 seconds, after 
about 8 or 9 seconds, I am thinking that this is taking forever; I 
can't do this for 20 seconds; it takes too long. Then I think of George 
Floyd--8 minutes and 46 seconds. It is a long time. It is a long time, 
as Congresswoman Dean said, calling out for his mother and extending 
love to his family.
  Let us ensure that George's brother, Philonise, when he said that 
George's name means something; and that as his daughter, Gianna, said, 
``Daddy changed the world,'' with this legislation, let us take an 
important step in changing the world for George's family, for all 
communities of color, for all Americans, and for the whole world.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a strong bipartisan vote in the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act, and I thank Karen Bass, again, for her 
leadership.
  Madam Speaker, nearly one year ago, George Floyd gasped his last 
words--``I can't breathe''--and ignited a nationwide reckoning on the 
racial injustice and police brutality in America.
  Americans from every corner of the country took to the streets to 
peacefully protest violence against Black Americans: waving Black Lives 
Matter flags, chanting the names of the murdered, repeating George 
Floyd's dying words.
  They turned their agony into action, but tragically, despite these 
mass protests, the injustice--the killing--continues.
  Last year, 1,127 people were killed by police, far more than in the 
year before. In the months following George Floyd's murder, 645 people 
were killed--and hundreds more were attacked and assaulted, including 
Jacob Blake: shot seven times in the back in front of his three 
children.
  As George Floyd's brother Philonise recently said, ``As a Black man 
in the United States, I want to be able to go outside and protest, 
because at this time, I don't know who is going to survive or not.''
  As Members of Congress and as Americans, we cannot accept this 
epidemic of injustice. We cannot stay silent, when our most vulnerable 
and historically marginalized communities--people of color, those 
living in poverty, Americans with disabilities--are being targeted and 
killed.
  That is why, today, the House will again pass the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act--and send it to the Senate and the President's 
desk, so that it can finally become law.
  I salute Congresswoman Karen Bass, who has been relentless, 
persistent and absolutely courageous in her leadership on this 
legislation. Thank you to the CBC and Chair Joyce Beatty, and Judiciary 
Chair Jerry Nadler.
  The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act fundamentally transforms the 
culture of policing with strong, unprecedented reforms, including: 
banning chokeholds; stopping no-knock warrants; ending the court-
created qualified immunity doctrine; combating racial profiling; and 
establishing strong new standards and protections to prevent and combat 
police misconduct.
  This legislation will not erase centuries of systemic racism and 
excessive policing in America.
  It will not bring back George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery or 
the countless other men and women who died or were senselessly injured.
  But it will take a tremendous step forward to stop the violence, stem 
the suffering and start to build a healthier, better relationship 
between law enforcement and the communities that they protect.
  All of us here salute and are profoundly grateful for our law 
enforcement heroes. But our appreciation cannot lapse into apathy or 
acceptance of actions that are fundamentally incompatible with the 
purpose of policing.
  As the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives 
writes, ``The passage of this act is paramount in achieving the 
fundamental principle of a police force that `protects and serves' 
every citizen of their community, with fairness, accountability and 
transparency in their actions.''
  The Democratic Congress, together with the Biden-Harris 
Administration, is committed to not only ensuring that this legislation 
becomes law--but to taking further action to end violence and advance 
justice in America.
  Let us ensure that the passage of the George Floyd Justice in 
Policing Act is the first of many steps in this mission.
  And let us ensure that, as George's brother said, ``George's name 
means something''; and that, as his daughter Gianna said, ``Daddy 
changed the world.''
  With this legislation, let us take a small step to ``changing the 
world''--for George's family, for all communities of color, and for all 
Americans.
  With that, I urge a strong, bipartisan vote for the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I will just point out that the Speaker of 
the House said we should respect the police, but the Speaker of the 
House named an individual to conduct a review of the breach of the 
Capitol on January 6, and that individual has insulted the very police 
who protect us.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. 
Greene).
  Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1280.
  Do you know what is terrifying to the American people?
  Watching Democrats try to pass a defund the police bill; the same 
Democrats who cheered on and supported riots that burned American 
cities, and the same Democrats who shared Minnesota Freedom Fund bail 
bond links supporting criminals and helping them get out of jail.
  This bill is atrocious. Shame on all of you. This hurts our police 
officers.
  April 29, 2010, my friend, Jonathan Edwards, was shot in the line of 
duty. If that happened today and this bill is passed, getting rid of 
qualified immunity allows the criminal who shot him to be able to sue 
him simply because they are upset that they were arrested.
  This same bill will also allow that criminal who shot him to be able 
to put his name on a national hit list that will be made public, 
whether police officers are found to have done wrong or not.
  This is shameful.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Omar). Members are reminded to direct 
remarks to the Chair and not each other.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is a critical 
step towards ensuring a country where Black people are treated as equal 
citizens, not just in theory, but in real life. This bill weaves into 
our laws the truism that Black Lives Matter. This bill will help build 
trust between law enforcement and the communities that they are sworn 
to protect and serve.
  ``Equal Justice Under the Law'' may be etched atop the entrance to 
this Nation's highest court, but it is not a privilege enjoyed by each 
of us. We must act now to ensure that we protect the humanity of every 
person. Stand up for the principle of equal justice for all.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
vote ``yes'' for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cline).
  Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, the death of George Floyd last year led to 
communities across the Nation to come together to speak out against 
injustices, call for additional accountability and transparency in 
policing, and advocate for solutions that could move us forward 
together as a nation.
  But instead of working with Republicans to find a bipartisan 
solution, the Democrat majority has, once again, written a partisan 
bill to ram through the House with no committee markup,

[[Page H1063]]

no open amendments, and no meaningful bipartisan collaboration. That is 
not what the American people sent us here to do.
  This legislation will impede the ability of good police officers to 
do their jobs effectively and uphold the rule of law. Our dedicated 
police officers who serve our communities work tirelessly to ensure 
that lawlessness does not prevail in our streets and neighborhoods.
  The effect of this bill on law enforcement is to levy unfunded 
mandates on local governments, force law enforcement to leave the 
profession, and, yes, defund the police.
  Madam Speaker, as you said, defund the police is not a slogan, but a 
policy demand.
  Madam Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no.''
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California, Karen Bass, for her leadership; as well as the 
Congressional Black Caucus for always speaking truth to power.
  Madam Speaker, today we take a stride towards ending racism in 
policing. But this is just the beginning. We must recognize that 
systemic racism extends well beyond law enforcement. Systemic racism is 
the way governments have deliberately impoverished Black families, then 
condition necessary medical care on our ability to pay.
  It is the way we fund our public schools, a property tax-based system 
that concentrates tens of billions more dollars in White communities 
than in Black and Brown communities.
  In America, it is the way we run our elections, purging Black voters, 
especially in Southern States, from the rolls and closing the polls in 
Black neighborhoods. We can't stop until we have eradicated systemic 
racism in all of its forms.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the insidious and false pretext for this legislation 
endangers and ends lives. The bill rests on a false premise and 
promotes a false narrative that police are racists and use their power 
to advance racist ends. This narrative is a false and despicable 
slander.
  Police officers do not leave their loved ones and risk their own 
lives every shift to oppress or discriminate. They do it to serve. They 
do it without fanfare and for little pay, and they have come to 
anticipate abuse in place of the respect that they deserve. They do it 
to save lives.
  But the reckless ``defund the police'' rhetoric behind this 
legislation is forcing police to retreat and to leave the vulnerable at 
the mercy of those who prey upon them.
  Madam Speaker, you should run from that rhetoric, as you are. Madam 
Speaker, you called the police ``rotten to the root'' and called for it 
to be ``dismantled.''
  That rhetoric is killing people. Please stop the political games. 
Stop slandering law enforcement, and stop endangering our communities. 
Back the blue.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, no matter how many times Republicans say 
that this bill defunds the police, it doesn't change the fact that it 
does not defund the police.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Ms. Bush).
  Ms. BUSH. Madam Speaker, first of all, we shouldn't be talking about 
good police and bad police. There should just be police who are doing 
their job to serve and protect the people. So let's make that clear.
  There is no such thing as good police. There is no good nursing. When 
you go get food, you don't go look for: This place has a good chef; 
this one has the bad chef; I am going to go where the bad chef is.
  We don't need this good police/bad police. We need police if we are 
going to have police. But I will move on.
  Madam Speaker, St. Louis and I rise on behalf of the more than 788 
people who have been killed by law enforcement over the last year. We 
rise 30 years to the day after the ruthless beating of Rodney King. We 
rise in honor of Breonna Taylor, who was brutally gunned down by police 
in her home last March. We rise for George Floyd and all those who have 
been killed by police since his torture and murder.
  Those names: William Burgess, Mark Brewer, Dion Johnson, Tony McDade, 
Rayshard Brooks, Modesto Reyes, Ruben Smith, David McAtee, Kamal 
Flowers, Robert Harris, Joseph Denton, Vincent Truitt, Sincere Pierce, 
Jeremy Southern, Angelo Crooms, and Amir Johnson.
  Madam Speaker, St. Louis and I rise on behalf of the more than 788 
people who have been killed by law enforcement over the last year. We 
rise 30 years to the day after the ruthless beating of Rodney King. We 
rise in honor of Breonna Taylor who was brutally gunned down by police 
in her home last March.
  We rise for George Floyd and all those who've been killed by police 
since his torture and murder:

       1. William Burgess III
       2. Mark Brewer
       3. Dion Johnson
       4. Tony McDade
       5. Rayshard Brooks
       6. Modesto Reyes
       7. Ruben Smith III
       8. Jarvis Sullivan
       9. David McAtee
       10. Kamal Flowers
       11. Michael Thomas
       12. Robert Harris
       13. Rasheed Moorman
       14. Ky Johnson
       15. Kevan Ruffin
       16. Joseph Denton
       17. The more than 100 people whose names have been withheld 
     by police
       18. Erroll Johnson
       19. Malik Canty
       20. Richard Price
       21. Hakim Littleton
       22. Vincent Truitt
       23. Aaron Hudson
       24. Darius Washington
       25. Vincent Harris
       26. Jeremy Southern
       27. David Brooks Jr.
       28. Darrien Walker
       29. Ashton Broussard
       30. Amir Johnson
       31. Julian Lewis
       32. Rafael Minniefield
       33. Kendrell Watkins
       34. Anthony McClain
       35. Adrian Roberts
       36. Trayford Pellerin
       37. Damian Daniels
       38. Michael Harris
       39. Name withheld by police
       40. Robert Jackson
       41. Dijon Kizzee
       42. Deon Kay
       43. Steven D. Smith
       44. Major Carvel Baldwin
       45. Steve Gilbert
       46. Jonathan Darsaw
       47. Robert Coleman
       48. Caine Van Pelt
       49. Darrell Zemault Sr.
       50. Aloysius Keaton
       51. Charles Eric Moses Jr.
       52. Dearian Bell
       53. Kurt Reinhold
       54. Salaythis Melvin
       55. Willie Shropshire Jr.
       56. DeMarco Riley
       57. Jonathan Price
       58. Tyran Dent
       59. Momodou Lamin Sisay
       60. Stanley Cochran
       61. Anthony Jones
       62. Kevin Carr
       63. Brandon Gardner
       64. Donald Ward
       65. Terron Jammal Boone
       66. Skyleur Young
       67. Dana Mitchell Young Jr.
       68. Fred Williams III
       69. Akbar Muhammad Eaddy
       70. Dominique Mulkey
       71. Marcellis Stinnette
       72. Rodney Arnez Barnes
       73. Gregory Jackson
       74. Mark Matthew Bender
       75. Ennice ``Lil Rocc'' Ross Jr.
       76. Jakerion Shmond Jackson
       77. Walter Wallace Jr.
       78. Maurice Parker
       79. Kevin Peterson Jr.
       80. Name withheld by police
       81. Justin Reed
       82. Reginald Alexander Jr.
       83. Tutuila Pine Koonwaiyou
       84. Fredrick Cox Jr.
       85. Rodney Eubanks
       86. Brandon Milburn
       87. Sincere Pierce
       88. Angelo ``AJ'' Crooms
       89. Tracey Leon McKinney
       90. Name withheld by police
       91. Shane K. Jones
       92. Shawn Lequin Braddy
       93. Javon Brice
       94. Kenneth Jones
       95. Rodney Applewhite
       96. Rondell Goppy
       97. Ellis Frye Jr.
       98. Terrell Mitchell
       99. Mickee McArthur

[[Page H1064]]

  

       100. James David Hawley
       101. Julius Paye Kehyei
       102. Kevin Fox
       103. Dominique Harris
       104. Andre K. Sterling
       105. Casey Christopher Goodson Jr.
       106. Kwamaine O'Neal
       107. Donald Edwin Saunders
       108. Joshua Feast
       109. Bennie Edwards
       110. Charles E. Jones
       111. Jeremy Maurice Daniels
       112. Larry Taylor
       113. Andre Maurice Hill
       114. Sheikh Mustafa Davis
       115. Shamar Ogman
       116. Marquavious Rashod Parks
       117. Larry Hamm
       118. Jaquan Haynes
       119. Jason Cooper
       120. Dolal ldd
       121. Carl Dorsey III
       122. Tre-Kedrian Tyquan White
       123. La Garion Smith
       124. Vincent Belmonte
       125. Robert ``Lil Rob'' Howard
       126. Matthew Oxendine
       127. Jason Nightengale
       128. Patrick Warren Sr.
       129. Heba Momtaz Alazhari
       130. Lymond Maurice Moses
       131. Kershawn Geiger
       132. Zonterious Johnson
       133. Christopher Harris
       134. Eusi Malik Kater Jr.
       135. Tyree Kajawn Rogers
       136. Roger D. Hipskind
       137. Karl Walker
       138. Marvon Payton Jr.
       139. Chazz Hailey
       140. Patches Vojon Holmes Jr.
       141. Treyh Webster
       142. Dontae Green
       143. Andrew Hogan
       144. Dustin Demaurean Powell
       145. Gregory Taylor
       146. Joe Louis Castillanos
       147. Robert Avitia
       148. John Alvarado
       149. Name withheld by police
       150. Rommel Mendoza
       151. Jorge Gomez
       152. Sean Monterrosa
       153. Eric Anthony Galvan
       154. Erik Salgado
       155. Juan Carlos Alvarez
       156. Anthony Angel Armenta
       157. Andres Guardado
       158. Michael Kristopher Torres
       159. Kevin Pulido
       160. Martin Humberto Sanchez Fregoso
       161. Leonardo Hurtado Ibarra
       162. Nick Costales
       163. James ``Jay'' Porter Garcia
       164. Axel Perez
       165. Carlos Baires
       166. Name withheld by police
       167. Antonio Mancinone
       168. Julio Jaramillo
       169. Cristhian Eliud Ramos-Murillo
       170. Julio Cesar Virula
       171. Ray Adrian Lara
       172. Gabriel Salinas
       173. Ramon Timothy Lopez
       174. Roberto Hernandez Jr.
       175. Name withheld by police
       176. Ryan Shane Hinojo
       177. Americo C. Reyes Jr.
       178. Jose Vallejos
       179. Name withheld by police
       180. Daniel Rivera
       181. Ronnie Kong
       182. Jose Manuel Castro
       183. Santos Anthony Villegas
       184. Everardo Gonzalez Santana
       185. Marco Antonio Sigala Jr.
       186. Samuel Mata
       187. Cesar Sanchez Ruiz
       188. Name withheld by police
       189. Jesus Alvarez Pulido
       190. Julio Cesar Moran-Ruiz
       191. Jesse David Nava
       192. Miguel Vega
       193. Marco Antonio Benito
       194. Christopher Escobedo
       195. Ricardo Miguel Munoz
       196. Name withheld by police
       197. Victor Sanchez
       198. Angel Benitez
       199. Isaiah Pama
       200. Name withheld by police
       201. Jason Rodriguez
       202. Diego Eguino-Alcala
       203. Juan Adrian Garcia
       204. Nick Burgos
       205. Douglas Sanchez
       206. Cesar Vargas
       207. Matthew Montoya
       208. Jose Marcos Ramirez
       209. Miguel A. Nevarez Jr.
       210. Yoel Arnaldo Mejia Santel
       211. Edwin Morales
       212. Alberto Rivas
       213. Jose Alfredo Castro-Gutierrez
       214. Emmett Cocreham
       215. George Cocreham
       216. Francisco Danny Flores
       217. Daniel Angel Villalobos-Baldovinos
       218. Marc Nevarez
       219. Name withheld by police
       220. Charles Robert Arviso
       221. Justin Esqueda
       222. Rodolfo ``Rudy'' Martinez-Cortez
       223. Luis Robert Zaragoza Barbosa
       224. Augustine Morales
       225. Pedro Martinez
       226. Anthony Arias
       227. Stavian Rodriguez
       228. Nicolas Segura
       229. Michael Anthony Pena
       230. Adam Lee Mendez
       231. Dolores Hernandez
       232. Christian Juarez
       233. Evelia Rivera
       234. Luis Manuel Vasquez Gomez
       235. Reno E. Casanova
       236. Andrew Mansilla
       237. Leonel Salinas
       238. Paul Peraza
       239. Christopher Cuevas
       240. Name withheld by police
       241. Jesus Perez
       242. Bryan Cruz-Soto
       243. Rodolfo Caraballo Moreno
       244. Frank Gonzales
       245. David Tovar Jr.
       246. Felix Santos
       247. Omar Felix Cueva
       248. Josue Drumond-Cruz
       249. Edwin Adan Velasquez
       250. Juan Carlos Pena-Noda
       251. Erick Mejia
       252. Henry Barnes Jr.
       253. Brandon R. Laducer
       254. Antonio Black Bear
       255. Nicholas Morales-Bessannia
       256. Cole F. Stump
       257. Trifton Stacy Wacoche
       258. Ernie Teddy Serrano
       259. Caillen Paoakea Gentzler
       260. Peter K. England
       261. Christian Hall
       262. Reymar Gagarin
       263. John A. Vik
       264. Gary P. Dorton
       265. Justin Mink
       266. Name withheld by police
       267. Kenneth Bennett
       268. Alexander Scott
       269. Name withheld by police
       270. James Pharr
       271. Gerard John
       272. Ray Lee Jim
       273. Gregory Lee Turnure
       274. Donald L. Hunter
       275. Jeffrey McClure
       276. Michael Seltzer
       277. Richard L. Mason
       278. Phillip Dibenedetto
       279. Jerry M. Bethel
       280. Tiffany T. Bingham
       281. Brandeis Codde
       282. Name withheld by police
       283. David Guillen
       284. Jason James Kruzic
       285. Robert Wenman
       286. Matthew L. Fox
       287. Julie Colon
       288. Louis Lane
       289. Lance Bowman
       290. Kevin Lee Catlett
       291. Name withheld by police
       292. Doug Diamond
       293. Rodney Liveringhouse
       294. Name withheld by police
       295. Name withheld by police
       296. Taylor Christian Warner aka Tylor Warner
       297. Joey Hoffman
       298. Eduardo Martinez
       299. Kanavis Dujuan Glass
       300. Daniel Matheson
       301. Michael Joseph Culbertson
       302. Marcos Reyes
       303. Rodney Morrison
       304. Arlan Kaleb Schultz
       305. Glynn Farse Young
       306. Antwane Burrise
       307. Name withheld by police
       308. Malcolm Comeaux
       309. Grant King
       310. David Angulo
       311. Deborah White
       312. Name withheld by police
       313. Name withheld by police
       314. Dane Norris
       315. Samuel Solomon Cochran Jr.
       316. Jacob Wilbur Wright
       317. Jason Matthew Henke
       318. Winston Joseph Latour Ill
       319. Giovanni Cedano-Amaro
       320. Juan Rene Hummel Jr.
       321. Gary Hardy Jr.
       322. Colin E. Davis
       323. William Sears
       324. Ronald Pope
       325. Cryus D. Carpenter
       326. Name withheld by police
       327. Melissa Halda
       328. Christopher Lawings
       329. Andrew S. Gwynn
       330. Name withheld by police
       331. Name withheld by police
       332. Anthony Budduke
       333. Name withheld by police
       334. Donald Anderson
       335. Robert Land
       336. Lyana Gilmore
       337. Name withheld by police
       338. Name withheld by police
       339. Donald Timothy Miller
       340. Name withheld by police
       341. Fred John Henry Arcera
       342. Name withheld by police
       343. Trevor Edwards
       344. Ronald Stuart Chipman
       345. Name withheld by police
       346. Hasani Best
       347. Christopher Walker
       348. Mark Dawson Jr.
       349. Gearil Leonard Williams
       350. Corey Lee Cutler
       351. Name withheld by police
       352. Charles Garland
       353. Casper Brown
       354. Kurt Phelps
       355. Arthur Zalman Ferrel
       356. Fernando Napoles
       357. Shaon Jermy Ochea Walker
       358. Verlon Billy Stiles
       359. Refugio Reynaldo Olivo
       360. Matthew Patton
       361. Samuel Herrera Jr.
       362. Robert Samuel Craig Lusk

[[Page H1065]]

  

       363. Joshua Clayton Brant
       364. Name withheld by police
       365. Derek Cooper
       366. Julia Anne Moss
       367. Randy Fedorchuk
       368. Jessie A. Hudnall
       369. Name withheld by police
       370. James Lucachevitz
       371. Kirby Joseph Michael Hengel
       372. Name withheld by police
       373. Mickel Erich Lewis Sr.
       374. John Aycoth
       375. Austin Manzano
       376. Christopher Ulmer
       377. Andrew A. Williams
       378. Chester McDonald
       379. Justin Caldwell
       380. Ariel Esau Lujan
       381. Shawn Campbell
       382. Name withheld by police
       383. Name withheld by police
       384. Jason Edward Galliart
       385. Name withheld by police
       386. Name withheld by police
       387. Name withheld by police
       388. Ethan Freeman
       389. Paul Sulkowski
       390. Joey Hoffman
       391. Name withheld by police
       392. Name withheld by police
       393. Steven Belville
       394. Keith Beecroft
       395. Name withheld by police
       396. Michael Nichols
       397. Name withheld by police
       398. Name withheld by police
       399. John Lipski
       400. Name withheld by police
       401. Bruce Allan Shumaker
       402. Michael K. Nelson
       403. Clifton Gorman Spencer
       404. Brandon Keith Davis
       405. Matthew Daniel Johnston
       406. Jason S. Cline
       407. Thomas Celona
       408. Caleb Slay
       409. Name withheld by police
       410. Jason Neo Bourne
       411. Name withheld by police
       412. John Wesley Seymour
       413. Name withheld by police
       414. Name withheld by police
       415. Name withheld by police
       416. Javier Magana
       417. David Viveros
       418. Steven Campos
       419. Rodriguez Duandre Pam
       420. Terry David Fox
       421. Name withheld by police
       422. Ronny Dunning
       423. Daniel David Reyes
       424. Vusumuzi Kunene
       425. Daron Jones
       426. Chris Mellon
       427. Eric Lyn Clark
       428. Henry Frankowski
       429. Name withheld by police
       430. Name withheld by police
       431. Name withheld by police
       432. Christina Markwell
       433. Name withheld by police
       434. Terrell Smith
       435. Duane Scott Murray
       436. Peter Russell
       437. Jordan D. Patterson
       438. Name withheld by police
       439. Douglas Hatfield
       440. Name withheld by police
       441. Nicholas Cory Kausshen
       442. Name withheld by police
       443. Lorenzo Aguilar
       444. Name withheld by police
       445. Alonzo Leroy Landy
       446. Cory Donell Truxillo
       447. Name withheld by police
       448. Maurice Jackson
       449. Larry Eugene Boyd
       450. Nancy King
       451. Randy Ward
       452. Name withheld by police
       453. Estavon Dominic Elioff
       454. Name withheld by police
       455. Thomas Reeder III
       456. Nathaniel Sironen
       457. Brad Tyler Masters
       458. Joseph R. Crawford
       459. Whitney J. Crawley
       460. Kurtis Kay Frevert
       461. Earl Robert Caperton
       462. Name withheld by police
       463. Name withheld by police
       464. Name withheld by police
       465. Joseph Evans
       466. Name withheld by police
       467. Johnny Bolton
       468. Tyquarn Graves
       469. Nicholas Ellingson
       470. Name withheld by police
       471. Name withheld by police
       472. Daniel Russell
       473. Name withheld by police
       474. Mark Clermont
       475. Michael Brandon Joyner
       476. Name withheld by police
       477. Helen Jones
       478. Name withheld by police
       479. Name withheld by police
       480. Alaina Burns
       481. Shyheed Robert Boyd
       482. Samuel Lorenzo
       483. Jeffrey Marvin
       484. Name withheld by police
       485. Isaac Matheney
       486. Name withheld by police
       487. Micahel Romo
       488. Name withheld by police
       489. Jose Guzman
       490. Alexander Gonzales
       491. Benicio Vasquez
       492. Jacob Ryan McDuff
       493. Kwamena Ocran
       494. Charles Edward Williams
       495. Paul Bolden
       496. Xzavier D. Hill
       497. Mark Bivins
       498. Allen Mirzayan
       499. Joseph W. Howell
       500. Name withheld by police
       501. Antonio Carbajal
       502. Gary Rodriguez Jr.
       503. Name withheld by police
       504. Reginald Johnson
       505. Name withheld by police
       506. Name withheld by police
       507. Daniel Young
       508. Daniel Canales Jr.
       509. Robert Laudell Bull
       510. Bradley Alexander Lewis
       511. Name withheld by police
       512. Name withheld by police
       513. Harmony Wolfgram
       514. Name withheld by police
       515. Javier Magdaleno
       516. Kenneth Michael Dallas
       517. Name withheld by police
       518. Ezekiel Meza
       519. Franklin Gray
       520. Kevin Hayes
       521. Andrew Scott Kislek
       522. Name withheld by police
       523. Joshua Crites
       524. Name withheld by police
       525. Anthony Andrew Reunart
       526. Name withheld by police
       527. Name withheld by police
       528. Name withheld by police
       529. Kevin Costlow
       530. Dennis Denham
       531. Anthony Greco
       532. Keenan Sailer
       533. Brooke Leann Blair
       534. Brian Gregory Scott
       535. Demarko Montez Henderson
       536. Cortez Lee Bogan
       537. Name withheld by police
       538. Jacob Aaron Thomas
       539. Jonathan Turner
       540. Name withheld by police
       541. Name withheld by police
       542. Name withheld by police
       543. Adam Bruce Connors
       544. Phillip N. Davenport
       545. Bruce Diehl
       546. Name withheld by police
       547. Name withheld by police
       548. Name withheld by police
       549. Richard Councilman
       550. Tracy Drowne
       551. John Allen Dunaway III
       552. Jason Jesse Gallegos
       553. Channing Lamar Spivey
       554. Joshua Blessed aka Sergei Jourev
       555. Steven Edward Ferguson
       556. Sarah Grossman
       557. Robert Anthony ``Jordan'' Whitehead
       558. John Benedict Coleman
       559. Name withheld by police
       560. Caleb Rule
       561. Israel Berry
       562. Thomas Jeffery Sutherlin
       563. Ryan Emblem Moore
       564. Robert James Lyon
       565. Scott Hutton
       566. Mary Lawrence
       567. Gregory W. Hallback
       568. Benjamin Ballard
       569. Jarrid Hurst
       570. Morgan James Davis
       571. Marcus James Uribe
       572. Mason James Lira
       573. Gregorio Cruz Vanloo
       574. William Slyter
       575. Hannah R. Fizer
       576. Nicholas Hirsch
       577. Troy Willey
       578. Keith Willliam Brunelle
       579. Jack Harry
       580. David Lee Jacobs
       581. Kellen Fortune
       582. Buddy Edward Weeks
       583. Cody W. Cook
       584. Sabastian S. Noel
       585. Benjamin Paul Brooks
       586. Aaron Wesley Keller
       587. Bonnie Jo Figueroa-Ortiz
       588. Michael Pelley
       589. James Tober Sr.
       590. John Parks
       591. Wade Russell Meisberger
       592. Brittany S. Teichroeb
       593. Jason Noble Snow
       594. Wade Protus Phillips
       595. Constantin Filan
       596. Erick Gilmore
       597. Paul Eugene Armstrong
       598. Adam Lucas Carroll
       599. Kevin Michael Norton
       600. Terena Nicole Thurman
       601. Sean Ernest Ruis
       602. Tim O'Shea
       603. Tyler Blevens
       604. Name withheld by police
       605. Chase Rountree
       606. Name withheld by police
       607. Kyle Elrod
       608. Scott M. Kontowicz
       609. John Karl Sieger
       610. Christopher Poor
       611. Andrew Jacob Preece
       612. Howard Owens
       613. James Justin Munro Jr.
       614. Russell Van Liddell
       615. Adrean Stephenson
       616. Christopher Kimmons Craven
       617. David Lee Rigg
       618. David James Pruitte
       619. Nicholas Kocolis
       620. Jeffrey Scott Haarsrma
       621. Johnathan Randell
       622. Aaron Michael Griffin
       623. Matthew Hilbelink
       624. Earl Barton Jr.
       625. Chris Minor
       626. Joshua Squires

[[Page H1066]]

  

       627. Kenneth Reiss
       628. Joshua Gay
       629. Rick Lee Miller
       630. Jeffrey Hubbard
       631. Thomas Moles
       632. Jimmy Ferrer
       633. Keith Allen Fileger
       634. Erik Jon Perez
       635. Jack Lamar Harris
       636. Jeffrey Wratten
       637. Shiloh D. Smith
       638. Nathan Harrington
       639. Scott Huffman
       640. Joey Middleton
       641. Damien Evans
       642. Nikolas Frazier
       643. Albert Wheeler
       644. Timothy Clevenger
       645. Michael Forest Reinoehl
       646. Joshua Beedie
       647. Andrew Blowers
       648. Seth Holliday
       649. Jeffrey Meyer
       650. Chad Busby
       651. Robert Ray Doss Jr.
       652. Glenn ``G'' Alvin Eldridge
       653. Clay A. Reynolds
       654. Name withheld by police
       655. Matthew Lyvon Paul
       656. Scott Heisler
       657. Rickey Wayne Riney
       658. Matthew C. Knowlden
       659. Joshua Sarrett
       660. Andrea Chuma
       661. Jeffery Ryan Blunk
       662. Christopher Michael Straub
       663. Matthew Nocerino
       664. Erik ``Ace'' Mahoney
       665. Jarred Kemp
       666. James Edward Baker
       667. Eric Marc-Matthew Allport
       668. Justin Lee Tofte
       669. Crystal Renee Starling Mcclinton
       670. John Hare
       671. Shayne Allen Sutherland
       672. William Sendelbach
       673. Kalun Purucker
       674. Anthony Michael Legato
       675. Sylvia Kirchner
       676. Julie Fandino
       677. Rodney Ross
       678. Jason Arpad Peters
       679. Steven Vest
       680. Christopher Allen Kanouff
       681. William Earl Lane
       682. Justin Dawley
       683. Bradley Pugh
       684. Darren W. Randolph
       685. Paul Bailey
       686. Gregory Putnik
       687. Chistopher John Kitts
       688. Bryan Selmer
       689. James Collins
       690. Brandon Evans
       691. Richard ``RJ'' James Jones
       692. Paul Sarver
       693. Ryan Fallo
       694. Isaac Lemoine Christensen
       695. Bennie Biby
       696. Frank Murphy
       697. John Pacheaco Jr.
       698. Quincy Ivan Bishop
       699. John Mellone
       700. Guy Bradly Able
       701. Justin Hammack
       702. Michael Moza
       703. Jacob Rucker
       704. Wendy Jones
       705. Jesse James Kale Brown
       706. Douglas E. Rash
       707. Charles Craig Meeks
       708. Cody William Amman
       709. Jake Settle
       710. David Donovan
       711. Joshua D. Evans
       712. Dustin James Acosta
       713. James Horton
       714. Michael Dansby
       715. Matthew Thomas
       716. Brittany Nicole Yoder
       717. Brian Allen Thurman
       718. Joshua Lee LaPlace
       719. Duane W. Rich
       720. Ethan Tyler Calton
       721. Craig Steven Wright
       722. Leonard Francis Kieren
       723. Dylan Ray Scott
       724. Kenneth Dale Miller
       725. Eric Drake Feenstra
       726. David John Donelli
       727. Name withheld by police
       728. Adam Robertson
       729. Benjamin Marley Manley aka Christopher Reeves
       730. Joshua Hoffpauir
       731. Jacob E. McClure
       732. William A. Riley-Jennings
       733. Joseph Tanner Casten
       734. Tara Rae Liubakka
       735. Cole Blevins
       736. Jordan Crawford
       737. Trevor Seever
       738. Jason Williams
       739. Henry Martinez Jr.
       740. James Reising
       741. Amanda Faulkner
       742. Michael Conlon
       743. Ashli Babbitt
       744. John R. Neitling
       745. Brian Andren
       746. Betty Francois
       747. Brian Williams
       748. Junius Thomas
       749. Daryl Dye
       750. Ty Walvatne-Donahey
       751. Joshua Van Machado
       752. Jeffrey D. Kite
       753. Justin Pegues
       754. Robert Stephen Calderon
       755. Kevin Darion Wells
       756. Christopher Austin Dockery
       757. Ryan Daniel Stallings
       758. Brian Richard Abbott
       759. Steven Verdone
       760. Caleb McCree
       761. John Eric Ostbye
       762. Edward Bittner
       763. Mark Meza
       764. Chase Coats
       765. Keith Scales
       766. Chad William Songer
       767. Richard Fenton Thomas
       768. Tracy Hope Walter-Hensley
       769. Nicholas Pingel
       770. Tilford ``TJ'' Barton
       771. Ariella Sage Eloise Crawford
       772. Clay Tatum
       773. Shae Estelle Jones
       774. Joseph Johnson
       775. Trey Bartholomew
       776. Clifford E. Wilbur Jr.
       777. Eric J. Porter
       778. Brian D. Ellis
       779. Gregory Chandler Metz
       780. Royce Robertston
       781. Lewis Ruffin Jr.
       782. Derrick Thompson
       783. Name withheld by police
       784. Name withheld by police
       785. Name withheld by police
       786. Name withheld by police
       787. Name withheld by police
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, the chairman of the committee has said 
several times that Democrats are not for defunding the police, but I 
would just point out the individual presiding over this session said 
that defunding the police is not a slogan, it is a policy demand.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Davidson).
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the Justice in Policing Act was crafted in response to 
George Floyd's murder. Almost no one believes that that was 
justifiable. Partisans have snatched this moment of unity to further 
divide our Nation.
  How have they done that?
  Look at this debate. Speaker after speaker has hurled insults falsely 
claiming that no Republican supports reform. Now, it is true that we 
don't support this reform, but the majority has refused to even 
consider amendments or alternatives to this partisan bill.
  An essential component of any justice in policing bill would correct 
current injustices. I only have time to mention one: warrantless 
surveillance of American citizens is wrong.
  Get a warrant.
  Last year, conservatives and progressives united around this point, 
and the Speaker blocked debate or amendment to FISA reauthorization. 
Now the same tactics are being employed. Every single Member of 
Congress is here to represent American citizens, and denying us 
amendments denies all Americans a voice.
  Don't politicize something that can heal and unite us. Vote ``no'' on 
this bill. Insist on regular order.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
  Mrs. BEATTY. Madam Speaker, 8 minutes, 46 seconds on George Floyd's 
neck. ``I can't breathe.''
  Say their names, Madam Speaker.
  Breonna Taylor, Casey Goodson, Jr., Andre Hill, Eric Garner, Tamir 
Rice, and so many more.
  While we can never bring them back and we cannot undo the pain their 
families, friends, and communities have felt, we can do everything in 
our power if we unite and pass this bill.
  As the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I urge all of my 
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join us.
  Our power, our message, is to pass the George Floyd Justice in 
Policing Act.
  The right should read the bill. The right should quote from the bill. 
Show me those words in the bill to defund the police.
  I will show you accountability. I will show you transparency. I will 
show you justice.
  The American people are calling on Congress to act. Yes, Black Lives 
Matter.
  Let's meet the moment and turn agony into action. Let's pass the 
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a former sheriff.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
bill.
  This bill should be a balefire, a warning to America that there are 
those

[[Page H1067]]

across the aisle who wish to attempt to federalize State and local law 
enforcement. I would like to focus specifically, though, on this move 
to eliminate qualified immunity. This is a betrayal of law enforcement. 
This alone is enough reason to vote against this bill.
  There is a myth, a lie, perpetrated by those who want to do away with 
qualified immunity, that qualified immunity gives officers free rein on 
the job. This is not true. This is not sovereign immunity; it is 
qualified immunity.
  The way that an officer qualifies for that immunity and for it to 
apply in an action that he has taken, he must follow the law, he must 
follow his agency's policies, and he has to act as he has been 
appropriately trained. If he violates any one of those three, he is on 
his own; qualified immunity does not apply.
  Madam Speaker, law enforcement is a dangerous profession that deals 
in split-second decisions. Most people in this room have no idea what 
it is like to determine, in a high-stress, life-threatening----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 9 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Bowman).
  Mr. BOWMAN. Madam Speaker, I was 11 years old when the police beat 
the crap out of me. Eleven years old, sixth grade; what threat did I 
pose, other than that of a child who was horseplaying in the street?
  My mother and I did not feel empowered to take any recourse, because 
in our community, the police, unfortunately, operate as an occupying 
force.
  I thank God that I am alive to tell this story. Unfortunately, George 
Floyd is not alive. Philando Castile is not alive. Tamir Rice is not 
alive. Aiyana Jones slept in her apartment on her couch. She was 7 
years old. Police came in with a no-knock warrant and murdered her.
  This is about transparency and accountability, and we should pass the 
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this bill, and that is a shame, because this is an area that is ripe 
for bipartisan compromise.
  But the House continues to spend its time forcing through another 
Democratic package that had zero Republican input. We considered this 
very same bill last Congress, but it only passed the House with three 
Republican votes in support.
  Meanwhile, my colleagues, Representative Pete Stauber and Senator Tim 
Scott, have proposed the JUSTICE Act to positively reform police to 
serve all Americans equally.
  However, their sincere efforts have not even been considered by those 
across the aisle. That bill would improve law enforcement transparency, 
require more detailed records on the use of force, provide funds for 
body cameras, ban choke holds, and improve training to intervene in 
situations and deescalate. These are all things we agree upon.
  Yet, instead of equipping our law enforcement for success, we are 
considering this bill that would make it harder for our police officers 
to keep our communities safe.
  Every community is different and dictating policy from Washington 
will only constrain our law enforcement heroes who put their lives on 
the line.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise.
  My dear friends, you say you have a bill. Where was your bill when 
you had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and you could have 
passed it?
  You say you have a bill. The same bill that you had to replace the 
Affordable Care Act that you never passed?
  The same bill that you had to rebuild the infrastructure across the 
length and breadth of this country that you never passed?
  Where is the invisible bill?
  I rise to support this bill that will deal with elimination of deadly 
force racism that can take the lives of Black people with impunity.
  I rise against your invisible bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded again to direct their 
remarks to the Chair and not to each other.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, Senator Scott had legislation, good 
legislation, but the Democrats wouldn't take it up; they filibustered.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, what happened to George Floyd is 
atrocious, it is criminal, and the policeman will be held accountable; 
he has got to be.
  But that has nothing to do with eliminating immunity for countless 
policemen across the country. This bill does not properly address or 
prevent what happened in poor George Floyd's case.
  Why would we have a bill that eliminates immunity for anybody 
charging the Capitol, breaking in illegally? They would be able to sue 
the police in the future, tie them up in court. Why would we do that? 
Because if we do this--follow the money--then the unions will be 
selling a lot of liability insurance; it will be the biggest fundraiser 
they have ever had.
  Let's get together and come together on a bill that will not just 
raise money, not just hire more lawyers, but will solve the problem of 
the death, as criminal as it was, of George Floyd.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, this bill isn't about what we just 
heard. This bill is a moment of potential redemption for a country 
riven by racial division, riven by a history of racism going back to 
slavery, the Reconstruction era, post-Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the 
violent oppression of people because of the color of their skin.
  We, in this body, have an opportunity to redeem our country and its 
history. Let us unite behind that cause and that opportunity at 
redemption.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act of 2021.
  The peaceful protests for racial justice last summer compelled a long 
overdue reckoning for our country to take action to fulfill America's 
promise of equality no matter the color of your skin.
  That is why I am proud to cosponsor this proposal to end police 
brutality and address the systemic racism that has marred American law 
enforcement for generations.
  With this legislation, we finally say enough is enough: We've had 
enough of racial and religious profiling; Enough of no-knock warrants 
and chokeholds; and Enough of police using military-grade equipment on 
our American streets.
  We are a country crying out for an end to the centuries-long scourge 
of racist brutality that has stolen so many black lives from our 
communities.
  The Justice in Policing Act will help erode the culture of impunity 
within too many of our police forces by bringing much-needed 
accountability and transparency to our law enforcement institutions.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
  Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1280, a 
purely partisan bill, developed with zero Republican input, that would 
defund the police and hamstring the ability of our law enforcement 
agencies to keep our communities safe.
  This bill would lower the legal threshold to criminally prosecute a 
police officer for deprivation of rights, which would, at best, lead to 
a torrent of frivolous cases against officers and, at worst, discourage 
them from doing their jobs.
  Our officers are already forced to work in difficult environments. 
Countless officers have already simply quit or retired early, while 
morale has plummeted for those who stay. It will continue if this bill 
passes.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1280, a bill 
that defunds the police.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?

[[Page H1068]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 6\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, Eric Garner, 
George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, all Black men and women who were killed 
by police.
  It is in their memory that I rise today in support of the George 
Floyd Justice in Policing Act, because we cannot live up to our ideals 
of justice for all while BIPOC Americans are disproportionately killed 
by police.
  We need to pass this bill to save lives, to reform qualified 
immunity, to ban no-knock warrants like the one that contributed to the 
death of Breonna Taylor, to end the use of choke holds that killed Eric 
Garner and George Floyd.
  I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this long 
overdue bill, to join me in this work to make this country a safer, 
more just place for all Americans. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, death and destruction at this Capitol 
from recent Trump-instigated violence shows the result of insufficient 
policing. The deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and in my 
area, Mike Ramos and Javier Ambler, and too many more, from misconduct, 
show the result of insufficient justice. As the name of this bill, 
``Justice in Policing,'' indicates this bill is not about removing the 
police; it is about removing the injustice. It seeks accountability.
  It seeks equal justice under the law by our law enforcers, 
particularly for people of color, who have too often been victimized by 
systemic racism. Instead of working with us to make it better and 
secure our communities and more justice for all, many of today's 
Republican opponents are only spouting the poisonous slogans of 
Trumpism. Because Black and Brown lives do matter, let's approve this 
bill to achieve greater justice for all in an America that is safer for 
all.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this bill, which represents the worst of Washington: defunding police 
in a surprise vote in the middle of the night.
  This bill advances the far-left Democrat platform, and would defund 
the police through unfunded mandates that cost State and local 
departments millions of dollars.
  If this weren't bad enough, the bill advances an antipolice agenda 
with Washington-knows-best regulations, and puts a target on the backs 
of everyday officers by creating a national database of complaints that 
have not been adjudicated.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose the bill. I stand with law enforcement, and I 
am grateful for those who serve on the thin blue line.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).
  Mr. TORRES of New York. Madam Speaker, as a person of color who has 
seen in my own life the dehumanizing effect of stop-and-frisk policing 
in New York City, I know firsthand that the Achilles' heel of American 
policing is the absence of accountability.
  We, as a country, have a choice. We can either choose police 
accountability or choose qualified immunity, but we cannot choose both.
  The purpose of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is not to 
second-guess officers who act in good faith. The objective is to hold 
liable officers who repeatedly abuse their power and who rarely, if 
ever, face consequences for their repeat abuses.
  If you are a good officer, you have nothing to fear. But if you are a 
bad officer, you have accountability to fear, and fear accountability, 
you should.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. Williams).
  Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, what we saw happen to George 
Floyd was not an isolated incident. It was a modern-day lynching caught 
on camera, and it must stop.
  Black men, women, and children are done dying. We are done dying at 
the hands of police.
  Law enforcement should protect and serve. But in communities of 
color, we don't have the luxury of making that assumption. Many Black 
people get the talk, instructions on how to act when encountering 
police to increase the likelihood of returning home alive. These are 
survival tactics that my husband and I don't want to have to pass on to 
my young Black son, but we must.
  For Black and Brown people everywhere, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Let's affirm our 
commitment to root out police brutality and ensure accountability in 
policing.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I rise today in loving memory of Aiyana 
Jones, who was only 7 years old when she was killed by Detroit police.
  The fact that the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act could have 
been named after countless other people murdered by police shows that 
this is long overdue. It is important to note this bill is a start, not 
the end, of our movement to transform what it means to feel safe in our 
country.
  We must demand true accountability, justice, and reparations for the 
generations of police brutality against our Black communities. We must 
invest in the social programs that we know will give our communities 
the opportunity to thrive.
  This is the justice that Aiyana Jones and George Floyd and many other 
lives lost to police violence deserve.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 3\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mfume).
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, there is an old African proverb that says: 
Until the lions tell their own story, the tales of the hunt will always 
glorify the hunter.
  Who are the lions? They are the victims. They are Black and Brown and 
indigenous. They have suffered, endured, and survived 200 years of 
brutality, slavery, racism, Jim Crow, oppression, deprivation, 
degradation, denial, and disprivilege.
  We have learned in this country one thing, that justice comes in 
small steps. And when we consider the enslavement of the Negro, the 
extermination of the Indian, the annexation of the Hispanic, our Nation 
that we love had an iniquitous conception.
  So these small steps, no matter how painful they are, must be taken. 
This bill helps move us toward a more perfect Union. I urge passage of 
the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).
  Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, as a representative of more than a 
quarter of NYPD's 36,000 active officers, and thousands more retirees 
and first responders, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1280 and every 
piece of legislation that aims to cripple or degrade our law 
enforcement.
  Instead of working with Republicans, my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle have chosen to push forth yet another partisan bill that 
will diminish public safety and prevent our law enforcement officers 
from serving and protecting our communities, all while trying to hold 
them personally liable. The brave men and women who put on the uniform 
every day deserve better.
  We have offered real solutions to increase transparency, 
accountability, and performance so our Nation's law enforcement 
officers can better serve and protect all.
  But make no mistake, this bill you are about to pass today defunds 
the police. The Congressional Budget Office

[[Page H1069]]

has confirmed that the unfunded mandates contained in this bill will 
drain the resources of State and local law enforcement to the tune of 
several hundred million dollars. This is negligence.
  As a resident of New York City who has seen our police department's 
budget slashed by a billion dollars by politicians who think they know 
more than the officers doing the job on the street, I can tell you that 
there are serious ramifications.
  Crime has skyrocketed. Last year, shootings increased by 97 percent, 
and murders increased by 44 percent. We have seen livelihoods and 
properties destroyed by rioters and looters in cities across America.
  Government's number one responsibility to its citizenry is to keep 
them safe. Defunding law enforcement is an abdication of that 
responsibility.
  Tonight, I call on every Member of this body to cosponsor my Right to 
Remain Safe Act, which holds local governments responsible should 
someone become a victim of a crime due to government's negligence.
  Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit today, we will 
instruct the Judiciary Committee to consider my amendment to H.R. 1280 
to include a simple, straightforward sense of Congress strongly 
rejecting efforts to defund the police.
  Madam Speaker, my colleagues say they don't support defunding the 
police. Well, here is their chance to show it.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to say thank you to the 
millions of Americans who peacefully put this bill on the agenda.
  It was nowhere last year until we saw 8 minutes and 46 seconds of a 
man being murdered, a Black man, George Floyd. People--White, Black, 
all different colors--took to the streets, and they said, ``No more.'' 
I want to thank those activists and ordinary people who said we don't 
have to tolerate this.
  The bill passed last year, and it is going to pass again because the 
American people are tired of this racism and the killing and killing 
and killing of Black people.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, you said: Defunding the police is not a slogan; it is 
a policy demand.
  Over 20 cities in this great country enacted that. They did that to 
the tune of $1.7 billion taken from the brave men and women who protect 
us all. That is our concern.
  We would have loved to have worked with the other side. We had a 
bill. Senator Scott worked tirelessly on it. Representative Stauber, 
former police officer Stauber, on our side worked night and day on it. 
But Democrats wouldn't work with us, wouldn't take any of our 
amendments.
  This is a partisan, political bill, unfortunately. That is why I urge 
a ``no'' vote.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act, which bans police choke holds, creates a 
national police misconduct registry, and eliminates qualified immunity, 
among other needed provisions.
  I grieved when first watching George Floyd's murder by a cop, and I 
grieve still over the continued loss of so many Blacks killed by cops. 
There have been 149 Black men killed at the hands of police since 
George Floyd's murder. I have been fighting against this police 
brutality since my first days as a member of the California State 
Assembly.
  But here we are, mourning the victims of police choke holds, Blacks 
being shot in the back, fathers being killed in front of their children 
and their families. We Blacks are under siege by rogue cops, who we pay 
to protect and serve us, and White supremacists and domestic 
terrorists.
  We have to resist this. We have to say to bad cops in blue that we 
are going to fight you. Or proud boys in yellow gear, we are going to 
fight you. We are going to resist you.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the George 
Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a comprehensive bill to address systemic 
racism in law enforcement.
  Today's legislation is named for George Floyd, whose senseless death 
at the hands of a police officer shocked the conscience of millions of 
Americans and sparked a long-overdue reckoning on race in America and a 
movement demanding racial justice. Congress has heard this call for 
justice, and in response, Congresswoman Karen Bass and the 
Congressional Black Caucus have written this critical legislation to 
hold police accountable, change the culture of law enforcement, and 
build trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
  The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act takes these challenges head 
on by banning chokeholds, mandating racial bias training, ending 
qualified immunity, restricting the sale of military-grade weapons to 
local police departments, and establishing a National Police Misconduct 
Registry. While the inequities in our criminal justice system are 
immense, this legislation is a bold step to address systemic racism in 
law enforcement, and the time has come to make these reforms the law of 
the land.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to affirm my 
support as an original cosponsor for H.R. 1280, the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act of 2021.
  This is not a new issue. But one that we continue to revisit over. 
And over. And over.
  Madam Speaker, how many times will my Republican colleagues affirm 
that Black Lives Matter as the blood of Black Lives cry out from 
American cities and streets?
   Despite what my Republican colleagues are purporting, the George 
Floyd Justice in Policing Act will not defund the police.
  But what it will do is bring us one step closer to justice by: 
banning chokeholds; prohibiting no-knock warrants; ending the qualified 
immunity doctrine that is a barrier to holding police officers 
accountable for wrongful conduct; Combatting racial profiling; 
Mandating there be data collection of these incidences for tracking, 
including body cameras and dashboard cameras; and; establishing new 
standards for policing.
  George Floyd's death should not be in vain. And as a mother of a 
black son. Grandmother to three black grandsons, I do not want to have 
to worry about their safety when they encounter the police who are 
sworn to protect and serve. Not be the judge, jury, and onsite 
executioner.
  Black lives matter, Madam Speaker, and it is past time that the laws 
of our nation reflect it. That is why I am urging my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support this bill. It goes without saying that I 
strongly encourage its immediate consideration and passage in the 
Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Ms. Malliotakis moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1280 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.

  The material previously referred to by Ms. Malliotakis is as follows:
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the 
     table of contents):

     SEC. 503. SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
     House--
       (1) recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion 
     demonstrated by the men and women of law enforcement who keep 
     our communities and our nation safe; and
       (2) condemns calls to ``defund'', ``disband'', 
     ``dismantle'', or ``abolish'' the police.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.

[[Page H1070]]

  

  Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208, 
nays 219, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 59]

                               YEAS--208

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--219

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brady
     Buck
     Graves (LA)
     Jones

                              {time}  2043

  Mr. CASTEN and Ms. TITUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SIMPSON, ROSE, and BUDD changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 59.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

      Amodei (Kelly (PA))
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)
     Buchanan (LaHood)
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Gaetz (McHenry)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Huffman (McNerney)
     Kelly (IL) (Kuster)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Krishnamoorthi (Brown)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Larson (CT) (Courtney)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lee (NV) (Kuster)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Moulton (McGovern)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Kuster)
     Roybal-Allard (Escobar)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Speier (Scanlon)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carson). The question is on passage of 
the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 212, not voting 0, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 60]

                               YEAS--220

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gooden (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland

[[Page H1071]]


     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--212

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                              {time}  2127

  Mr. ARMSTRONG changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK and Mr. KILMER changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GOODEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was shown voting aye on rollcall 
No. 60. I intended to vote no.


    Members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

      Amodei (Kelly (PA))
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)
     Buchanan (LaHood)
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Gaetz (McHenry)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Huffman (McNerney)
     Kelly (IL) (Kuster)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Krishnamoorthi (Brown)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Larson (CT) (Courtney)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lee (NV) (Kuster)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Moulton (McGovern)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Kuster)
     Roybal-Allard (Escobar)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Speier (Scanlon)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________