[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 150 (Wednesday, September 25, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5772-H5776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KEEPING VIOLENT OFFENDERS OFF OUR STREETS ACT
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1486, I
call up the bill (H.R. 8205) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide that Byrne grant funds may be used
for public safety report systems, and for other purposes, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTurner). Pursuant to House Resolution
1486, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 118-51 shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 8205
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Keeping Violent Offenders
Off Our Streets Act''.
SEC. 2. FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH POSTING BAIL.
Section 1033(f)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting before the comma the following:
``(including the posting of monetary bail, criminal bail
bonds, and Federal immigration bail bonds)''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) and the gentleman from
[[Page H5773]]
New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
General Leave
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 8205.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before you today in support of my
bill, H.R. 8205, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act.
This bill defines the posting of cash bail by a corporate, nonprofit,
or for-profit entity as engaged in the business of insurance,
subjecting them to Federal insurance laws and our criminal fraud
statutes.
My district, unfortunately, knows the painful consequences of some of
the leftwing bail policies after a repeat offender drove his car
through the Waukesha Christmas parade nearly 3 years ago. The Waukesha
community continues to heal from this violence that was unleashed that
day, but our community is resilient.
While we must take time to remember those whom we lost, we should
also turn an eye toward preventing a similar attack from ever happening
again. That starts through regulating the use of charitable bail funds,
which have been abused time and again to release violent criminals back
onto our streets with no consequences.
Charitable bail funds generally flew under the radar until 2020 when
the George Floyd riots caused revenues to balloon in many of these
funds. The solicitations were done, for the most part, from celebrities
and politicians.
What used to be small, community-based organizations that helped post
bail for nonviolent misdemeanors has now grown into a multimillion-
dollar industry.
For example, the Minnesota Freedom Fund saw revenues increase by
18,000 percent between 2019 and 2020, no doubt benefiting from then-
Senator Kamala Harris' tweet encouraging her supporters to help
fundraise for the group. A snap of that is just to my right.
Perhaps most alarming, what was intended to help bail out low-level,
nonviolent protesters has instead been used to release violent felony
offenders back into the streets with little to no oversight.
In 2021, for example, the Minnesota Freedom Fund released a domestic
abuser back onto the street. Two weeks later, that man, George Howard,
was charged with second-degree murder for a road rage incident.
Michael DeWitt of Louisville, Kentucky, was bailed out by The Bail
Project in February 2021 after being arrested on multiple charges. Two
months later, he was arrested again for murder.
Shawn Michael Tillman, 3 weeks after having his bail paid by the
Minnesota Freedom Fund, murdered a man at a light rail station in St.
Paul and is now serving a life sentence for that crime.
Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on.
According to an investigation conducted in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, the Minnesota Freedom Fund has bailed out at least 65
defendants who were awaiting trial on felony charges involving
violence, physical threats, or sex crimes.
Moreover, because these funds are often anonymous, or at least
unrelated to the defendant, there is no incentive to show up for their
court dates. It makes no sense. Many of them don't.
According to CNN, which took a look at this issue, nearly 42 percent
of the roughly 500 defendants bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund
later failed to appear at one or more court hearings between 2021 and
2022.
Commercial bail companies, by comparison, had a failure to appear
rate of only 22 percent during that same period of time. This is why
many States have begun regulating the use of charitable bail funds.
Unfortunately, a State-by-State patchwork has now developed, and it
will not solve this problem.
That is why we introduced the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our
Streets Act. The bill makes a small but important change to our
criminal code to define bail bonds as an insurance product--it doesn't
seem that significant; it is very simple--thereby subjecting them to
the same Federal background check and regulatory requirements as those
for for-profit bail agencies under the Federal Comprehensive Crime
Control Act of 1994.
This change would also bring charitable bail funds under State
insurance regulation, giving States the ability to better scrutinize
the use of the funds. There is no mandate on any of the State insurance
regulations.
Let me be clear: This bill does not outlaw the use of charitable bail
funds, nor does it regulate the posting of cash bail by family and
friends of the accused. This bill merely says that if you are operating
a not-for-profit with the purpose of posting cash bail, then you should
be subjected to the same regulation and oversight requirements as those
operating as for-profit entities.
This will bring needed oversight to organizations that for years have
gone unregulated--$42 million in the Minnesota Freedom Fund--while
ensuring accountability of these funds by subjecting them to Federal
insurance fraud statutes if they misappropriate funds or misrepresent
the use of these funds in any financial reports. We now will have some
oversight.
It is a critical step toward reversing steps by the Democrats, like
Vice President Harris, to remove bail safeguards and let violent
criminals back into our communities to cause further damage.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio, Chairman Jordan, for his
leadership on this important issue, as well as Congressman Troy Nehls,
Congressman Bryan Steil, Congressman Tom Tiffany, Congressman Clay
Higgins, and Congressman Ken Calvert from California for their
support of H.R. 8205.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8205 is yet another vehicle for Republican campaign
messaging that does nothing to help the American people. It is simply
another attempt by Republicans to baselessly claim that Democrats are
soft on crime and to distract the American people from the indisputable
fact that crime rates continue to drop across this country, as they
have for each of the last several years.
This legislation, which would amend the Federal insurance fraud
statute to define ``the business of insurance'' to include the posting
of any kind of monetary bail, would do nothing to actually keep violent
offenders off our streets.
Instead, it targets nonprofit bail funds that try to address the
clear inequities that result when people without financial means are
held pending trial simply because they can't afford to pay the bail
amounts set by the courts.
Defendants who can afford to pay the bail amount set by the court are
set free. In New York, we have such a person, a well-known person who
was accused of many felonies was set free on bail pending trial, was
convicted of 34 felonies, and is now free on bail pending sentencing. I
refer, of course, to Donald Trump.
Nonprofit bail funds, the Minnesota Freedom Fund in particular, have
become a favorite target of Republicans recently as they desperately
try to prop up their failing Presidential candidate by attacking Vice
President Harris and Governor Walz. Former President Trump has
repeatedly and falsely claimed that Vice President Harris donated to
the Minnesota Freedom Fund and that her donation secured the release of
a man who went on to commit murder.
This is nothing more than another made-up story the Republican ticket
has created, and it is just as false as the former President's claim
that immigrants are eating the dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio.
Minnesota Freedom Fund has confirmed that Vice President Harris has
never donated to them and that her only relationship to the fund was a
2020 tweet encouraging people to chip in if they were able.
[[Page H5774]]
{time} 1330
The fund, 2 years later, bailed out an offender who went on to commit
murder. The majority's attempt to link this incident to Vice President
Harris demonstrates that Republicans are willing to politicize even the
most heinous crimes to serve their desperate needs.
We know from experience and from actual data that, when the political
rhetoric is put aside, Democratic policies work to reduce crime.
Homicides are down across the country. Violent crimes are down.
Property crimes are down. We learned just last week that even drug
overdoses are substantially down this year.
While my Republican colleagues love to criticize policies aimed at
eliminating or reducing our justice system's reliance on cash bail,
study after study, including a recent comprehensive study of 33
jurisdictions, shows that bail reform has not led to an increase in
crime.
The majority's only answer to this mountain of evidence about the
crime rate is to claim that the FBI's crime data is fraudulent or that
it does not include critical jurisdictions, but the FBI's data covers
jurisdictions encompassing more than 312 million Americans. It includes
every jurisdiction in this Nation with more than 1 million people.
Moreover, data from other agencies and organizations show the same
decrease in crime rates that are shown by the FBI's data.
Despite the bill's title, it has nothing to do with violent crime or
offenders. It applies to entities that post any type of monetary bond,
including noncriminal immigration bonds and bonds for nonviolent
criminal offenses, which make up the vast majority of criminal bonds.
In fact, the provision of this bill that actually attempted to
address violent crime was stripped from the bill in the Judiciary
Committee. All that remains in the bill is the provision relating to
insurance fraud, despite the title.
I expect that, during today's debate, Republicans will cite
individual examples of people who committed violent offenses after
being bailed out by nonprofit bail funds. Each is tragic, and our
hearts go out to the victims and their families.
What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle won't mention is
the thousands more who received help from these funds, finished their
cases, and moved on with their lives without incident. The majority
won't mention the people who commit crimes after being released with
the help of commercial bail agents. Republicans will not mention that
it is a judge, not a bail fund, who decides whether to set cash bail in
a given case and, if so, in what amount.
Bail funds simply allow indigent defendants to obtain a release that
a court has already deemed to be appropriate.
We must remember that we cannot ask for or expect perfection from our
bail system. What we can do is to make sure that the solutions we
propose for violent crimes are actually targeted to address the problem
rather than to provide sound bites for social media.
There is no question that we must address the root causes of violent
crime, invest in proven solutions, such as community violence
intervention and drug treatment. We must also support law enforcement
with funding and other resources rather than attacking the FBI, the
ATF, and our other Federal partners relentlessly.
If and when the majority decides to get serious about combating
violence in America, I will gladly join them in exploring serious
solutions, but this legislation is no solution at all.
Mr. Speaker, therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting
``no'' on H.R. 8205, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward nominees for the Office of the
President.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8205, the so-
called Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act.
While I have many concerns with this bill, my primary concern is that
it was designed to target nonprofit bail funds, which help defendants
who cannot afford bail themselves to obtain pretrial release, release
that a court already determined to be appropriate.
Research has found that socioeconomic inequity often makes it harder
for people of color to afford bail and that they are more likely to
receive higher bail amounts than their White counterparts. I will
clarify that the color orange has never been considered a person of
color.
As a result, we find people of color in pretrial detention at
disproportionately high rates, not out of being guilty, but, rather,
due to poverty.
Nonprofit bail funds work to address these disparities and increase
fairness in our criminal justice system.
Unfortunately, today's bill turns a blind eye to this and, instead,
perpetrates the myth that bail reform has increased violent crime,
which data consistently disproves. Understanding that, it should come
as no surprise that the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act
does nothing to address violent crime.
Rather, the bill applies criminal penalties for misconduct that is
already covered by Federal wire fraud and money laundering statutes,
applies to any entity that posts bond, including noncriminal
immigration bonds, and affirms a bail system that we know deepens
inequity and cycles poverty.
This bill is a distraction from the fact that, thanks largely to
Democratic policies, violent crimes and homicides are down across our
country. It is also a distraction from real bipartisan work that we
could be doing to bring communities relief and perpetrators of violent
crimes to justice.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House Rules permitted, I
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would direct the Department of Justice to provide
funding to State, Tribal, and local law enforcement agencies to hire,
train, and retain detectives, investigators, and victim services
personnel to investigate unsolved violent crimes.
In recent years, the percentage of violent crime and homicide cases
solved by law enforcement agencies has declined significantly across
the country. To give a clearer picture of what that means, today,
nearly half of murders in the United States go unsolved, depriving
victims of healing and grieving families of justice.
If Republicans truly want to address violent crime, this amendment
would offer a solution by improving clearance rates for violent crimes,
bringing perpetrators to justice, radically improving community safety,
and enhancing supportive services for victims.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this
amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in
voting for the motion to recommit.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, once again, Republicans have brought us to the brink of
a government shutdown, threatening to cut off essential services for
millions of Americans.
Instead of addressing the real needs of the American people,
Republicans are poised to advance legislation that does little more
than advance false Trump campaign rhetoric.
Although the majority claims that the bill is necessary to provide
oversight of bail funds, the bill provides no oversight. It simply
applies criminal penalties of up to 10 years, or 15 years in some
cases, for misconduct that is already covered by Federal wire fraud and
money laundering statutes.
The majority does not even attempt to explain how this bill will live
up to its title of ``Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets,'' as
the bill has nothing to do with addressing violent crimes.
Like the majority's failed hearings in blue cities across the
country, this bill
[[Page H5775]]
is another baseless attempt by Republicans to engage in fear-mongering
and to label Democrats as soft on crime while ignoring their own
documented red State murder problem, the mountain of data showing that
crime has been steadily declining throughout the U.S. under the Biden-
Harris administration, and that bail reform policies have not
contributed to increases in crime that occurred during the pandemic.
In bringing up this legislation, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle seek to distract the American people from the fact that their
own actions have repeatedly made every American, from Presidential
candidates to school children, more at risk at every turn by failing to
support law enforcement funding and commonsense gun safety measures.
I urge Members to oppose this flawed legislation, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to close.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle mentioned
that many of these bail funds operate locally and, therefore, do not
affect interstate commerce. I think it is important to describe the
current landscape of the charitable bail funds, and we are not trying
to eliminate them.
According to the National Bail Fund Network, there are over 90
charitable bail funds operating across the country. Perhaps the largest
fund by revenue, The Bail Project, operates in at least 19 States. That
is according to a 2023 annual report.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, The Bail Project saw revenues
triple after the George Floyd riots to a whopping $42 million in 2020.
That is $42 million. There is zero oversight.
Thanks to solicitations from Vice President Harris and thanks to
those generous donations, The Bail Project ended calendar year 2023
with an astonishing $71 million. I think an important part that has
flown under the radar is that these donations are also tax deductible.
That is right. A lot of Americans are surprised by that. The bail for
a violent felony offender could be paid and written off on a tax
return, the same as if it were a donation to any charitable cause.
That is an incredibly important point in the context of regulating
the payment of cash bail. The donors to these funds have no skin in the
game, which makes it incredibly difficult to secure a defendant's
appearance in court. They likely care more about their tax deduction
than about who actually receives the bail money.
In other words, there is no disincentive to commit a new crime and
have a bond forfeited because the source of funds are not tied to the
defendant.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8205,
the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act.
H.R. 8205 is a poorly written Republican messaging bill that seeks to
undermine and discredit our Nation's nonprofit support systems. It
would do nothing to ``keep violent offenders off our streets.'' Any
misconduct by nonprofit bail funds is already a crime under federal
wire fraud and money laundering statutes, and both statutes convey
harsher penalties than insurance fraud. These nonprofits support low-
income people who are in pre-trial detention to be able to post bail.
In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Defendants for non-
violent crimes do not deserve to lose their jobs or be forced into
poverty simply because they cannot afford to post bail.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to stand ready to work toward real, impactful
solutions to address violent crime. Instead debating this bill,
Congress should be investing in community violence intervention, fully
funding our Federal law enforcement, preventing the flow of weapons of
war into our communities, and supporting our local law enforcement
agencies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1486, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the 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
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. 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:
Mr. Cardenas of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
8205 to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cardenas is as follows:
Mr. Cardenas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 8205 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Strike all that follows after the enacting clause and
insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Violent Incident Clearance
and Technological Investigative Methods Act of 2024'' or
``VICTIM Act of 2024''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Research indicates that law enforcement agencies can
increase clearance rates by improving--
(A) investigative processes;
(B) detective capacities; and
(C) organizational oversight and supervision of
investigations.
(2) When a law enforcement agency expends additional
investigative effort, the law enforcement agency improves its
success in gaining cooperation of key witnesses and increases
the amount of forensic evidence collected.
(3) Effective investigation of shootings can prevent
subsequent related violence by--
(A) deterring retaliation; and
(B) providing interventions to individuals who may continue
to commit crimes or become victims of retaliatory violence.
(4) Law enforcement agencies that demonstrate higher rates
of clearance for violent crimes committed against a person--
(A) have more structured oversight and formal interactions
between investigative units and agency leadership;
(B) are more likely to have investigative units that have
collaborative relationships and robust information sharing
with other units of the law enforcement agency;
(C) have investigative units that have specific goals and
performance metrics for both the unit and for investigators
within the unit;
(D) have investigators who more frequently respond to the
initial crime scene shortly after crimes have been reported
to collect evidence and interview witnesses;
(E) have investigators who either have specialized
experience before joining investigative units or are trained
in investigations once they join those units;
(F) often have standard operating procedures for
investigations that establish policies and evidence-based
best practices for conducting and completing homicide
investigations; and
(G) have better relationships with the communities they
serve, even if no specific community-oriented campaign or
initiative exists between investigative units and community
groups.
(5) Criminal justice agencies should collaborate with each
other and share best practices for solving violent crimes
committed against a person.
(6) A comprehensive community engagement strategy
concerning gun violence is essential to improving clearance
rates for violent crimes committed against a person.
SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM WITH RESPECT TO VIOLENT INCIDENT
CLEARANCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIVE
METHODS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Clearance by arrest.--The term ``clearance by arrest'',
with respect to an offense reported to a law enforcement
agency, means the law enforcement agency--
(A) has--
(i) arrested not less than 1 person for the offense;
(ii) charged the person described in subparagraph (A) with
the commission of the offense; and
(iii) referred the person described in subparagraph (A) for
prosecution for the offense; or
(B) has cited an individual under the age of 18 to appear
in juvenile court or before another juvenile authority with
respect to the offense, regardless of whether a physical
arrest occurred.
(2) Clearance by exception.--The term ``clearance by
exception'', with respect to an offense reported to a law
enforcement agency, means the law enforcement agency--
(A) has identified not less than 1 person suspected of the
offense; and
(B) with respect to the suspect described in subparagraph
(A), has--
(i) gathered enough evidence to--
(I) support an arrest of the suspect;
(II) make a charge against the suspect; and
(III) refer the suspect for prosecution;
(ii) identified the exact location of the suspect so that
the suspect could be taken into custody immediately; and
(iii) encountered a circumstance outside the control of the
law enforcement agency that prohibits the agency from
arresting the suspect, charging the suspect, or referring the
suspect for prosecution, including--
(I) the death of the suspect;
(II) the refusal of the victim to cooperate with the
prosecution after the suspect has been identified; or
(III) the denial of extradition because the suspect
committed an offense in another jurisdiction and is being
prosecuted for that offense.
[[Page H5776]]
(3) Clearance rate.--The term ``clearance rate'', with
respect to a law enforcement agency, means--
(A) the number of offenses cleared by the law enforcement
agency, including through clearance by arrest and clearance
by exception, divided by
(B) the total number of offenses reported to the law
enforcement agency.
(4) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
State, Tribal, or local law enforcement agency or prosecuting
office, or a group of Tribal law enforcement agencies or
Tribal prosecuting offices.
(5) Grant recipient.--The term ``grant recipient'' means a
recipient of a grant under the Program.
(6) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement
agency'' means a public agency charged with policing
functions, including any component bureau of the agency (such
as a governmental victim services program or village public
safety officer program), including an agency composed of
officers or persons referred to in subparagraph (B) or (C) of
section 2(10) of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25
U.S.C. 2801(10)).
(7) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the grant program
established under subsection (b)(1).
(b) Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a
grant program within the Office of Justice Programs under
which the Attorney General awards grants to eligible entities
to establish, implement, and administer violent incident
clearance and technological investigative methods.
(2) Applications.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under
the Program shall submit to the Attorney General an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing or
accompanied by--
(A) such information as the Attorney General may reasonably
require; and
(B) a description of each eligible project under paragraph
(4) that the grant will fund.
(3) Selection of grant recipients.--The Attorney General,
in selecting a recipient of a grant under the Program, shall
consider the specific plan and activities proposed by the
applicant to improve clearance rates for homicides, rapes,
sexual assaults, kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings.
(4) Eligible projects.--A grant recipient shall use the
grant for activities with the specific objective of improving
clearance rates for homicides, rapes, sexual assaults,
kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings, including--
(A) ensuring the retention of detectives who are assigned
to investigate homicides, rapes, sexual assaults,
kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings as of the date of
receipt of the grant;
(B) hiring and training additional detectives who will be
dedicated to investigating homicides, rapes, sexual assaults,
kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings;
(C) developing policies, procedures, and training to
improve the ability of detectives to effectively investigate
and solve homicides, rapes, sexual assaults, kidnappings, and
non-fatal shootings, including implementing best practices
relating to--
(i) improving internal agency cooperation, organizational
oversight and accountability, and supervision of
investigations;
(ii) developing specific goals and performance metrics for
both investigators and investigative units;
(iii) establishing or improving relationships with the
communities the agency serves; and
(iv) collaboration with and among other law enforcement
agencies and criminal justice organizations;
(D) training personnel to address the needs of victims and
family members of victims of homicides, rapes, sexual
assaults, kidnappings, or non-fatal shootings or
collaborating with trained victim advocates and specialists
to better meet victims' needs;
(E) acquiring, upgrading, or replacing investigative,
evidence processing, or forensic testing technology or
equipment;
(F) development and implementation of policies that
safeguard civil rights and civil liberties during the
collection, processing, and forensic testing of evidence;
(G) hiring or training personnel for collection,
processing, and forensic testing of evidence;
(H) hiring and training of personnel to analyze violent
crime and the temporal and geographic trends among homicides,
rapes, sexual assaults, kidnappings, and nonfatal shootings;
(I) retaining experts to conduct a detailed analysis of
homicides and shootings using Gun Violence Problem Analysis
(commonly known as ``GVPA'') or a similar research
methodology;
(J) ensuring victims have appropriate access to emergency
food, housing, clothing, travel, and transportation;
(K) developing competitive and evidence-based programs to
improve homicide and non-fatal shooting clearance rates;
(L) developing best practices for improving access to and
acceptance of victim services, including victim services that
promote medical and psychological wellness, ongoing
counseling, legal advice, and financial compensation;
(M) training investigators and detectives in trauma-
informed interview techniques;
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 ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________