[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7494-7496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appear here tonight to talk 
about police and community relations throughout our country. The 
purpose of this Special Order is to talk about how the relationship 
between police and local communities can be repaired.
  Over the last year, we have witnessed tensions rise between local law 
enforcement officers and local communities. The events we have 
witnessed across the country have highlighted the need for mending the 
strained relationships between police and communities across the 
country.
  This week, the Judiciary Committee in the House held a hearing 
entitled, Policing Strategies for the 21st Century. The purpose of this 
hearing was to look at how law enforcement is trained and how it is 
received in our communities across the country.
  The Senate also held a hearing this week. Their focus was on the use 
of body cameras.
  I applaud my colleagues for holding hearings on criminal justice 
reform this week, but I hope that this is just the beginning and not 
the end of the hearings that need to be held on so many different and 
very important and fundamental issues on the topic of criminal justice 
reform. All of these issues scream out for public attention and for new 
solutions by this Congress.
  There are many conversations that need to be had about the best ways 
to improve policing practices, including ways to curb the use of 
excessive force, the use of body cameras, and mental health evaluations 
for law enforcement. The list goes on and on.
  I would like to start out by talking about three of my bills: the 
Grand Jury Reform Act, the Police Accountability Act, and the Stop 
Militarizing Law Enforcement Act.
  Police militarization is an important subject that President Obama 
even weighed in on yesterday with the issuance of an executive order 
that incorporates my Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act. Both my 
bill and the President's executive order call for a ban on the transfer 
of certain surplus military-grade weaponry and both impose strict 
oversight and transparency measures to ensure that the equipment that 
is transferred is used properly.
  President Obama's Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group called for 
law enforcement agencies to ``embrace a guardian--rather than a 
warrior--mindset'' to build trust and legitimacy both within agencies 
and with the public.
  This statement is at the very core of what we need to change in our 
country. Military-grade weapons are made for one purpose, and that is 
to conduct war.
  When we see tanks and grenade launchers and this type of equipment 
being used by police, it enforces a message that we are at war in the 
streets of our very own country, the same way that we are at war in the 
streets of other countries. This has to change because our streets are 
not war zones, and we should not allow the unbridled proliferation of 
military weaponry onto our streets.
  When we allow our streets to be flooded with surplus weaponry from 
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we set the stage for a military 
mindset to take hold throughout the law enforcement community. We 
should not allow things to get twisted. There is a big difference 
between the law enforcement mentality and the military mindset.
  The creed of an Army soldier is to ``deploy, engage, and destroy the 
enemies of the United States of America in close combat.''
  Conversely, the classic police motto is ``to protect and serve.''
  So when we start flooding our streets with military-grade weaponry, 
we start to allow the creeping in of a different mindset. And when we 
factor in the fact that many of our law enforcement officers have 
actually had to be deployed to war zones during the last 12 or 13 years 
because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been fought by a 
volunteer Army, with a healthy dose of deployment of Reserve and 
National Guard units to the battle--when we consider that, we consider 
the fact that many law enforcement officers are also reservists or 
National Guardsmen or -women, and they have been deployed to war zones. 
Then they come back to their jobs in the Nation, and sometimes they 
could get it twisted in terms of what their actual goal and mission 
should be.
  On the streets of America, the mission is not to deploy and to engage 
the enemy and destroy the enemy in close combat. That is not what law 
enforcement officers should be about. And we don't need to let that 
mindset creep into law enforcement.
  When you have the experience and when you have the equipment and when 
you have inherent biases and prejudices that exist in the mindset of 
all Americans, regardless of whether or not it is law enforcement or 
civilian, then you get a situation where your minority communities can 
then be at

[[Page 7495]]

severe risk. And that, I am afraid, is what has occurred in this 
country because so many of our young people have lost confidence in our 
police departments and in our law enforcement community. And that, 
ladies and gentlemen, is definitely unhealthy. It is not good for our 
democracy. We need to try to do something to change it. And we can't 
make effective changes without understanding the problem.
  Now some would say that we need a military solution on the streets of 
America because the streets have become so lawless, but I would beg to 
differ. I would beg to differ strongly, as a matter of fact. We are 
dealing with citizens who still need to be protected.
  By the way, most people in America are law-abiding citizens. There 
are some who become criminals, who stray and commit criminal acts. 
Sometimes those criminal acts actually place people's lives at risk. 
And police and law enforcement are there to make sure that we keep 
people safe.
  All people want to be safe and secure in their homes and walking down 
the streets and in doing their business, in their life, work, and play 
pursuits. All of us want to be safe, and all of us realize that we must 
have law enforcement enforce the laws. All of us should have a 
responsibility to each other to stay within the boundaries of the law, 
and we are partners in that regard. We, the citizens, partner among 
ourselves; and then we must partner with our law enforcement community 
to enable law enforcement to do the job that we need them to do.
  So it is a relationship that is built on trust, and it is built on 
communication because law enforcement can only be as effective in 
enforcing the law as it is with respect to the relationships that it 
has among people in the community.
  That is why community-oriented policing is so important, to get 
police officers involved in the communities within which they serve; 
for them to get out of the car, go meet people, go develop 
relationships, and start the flow of dialogue. The citizens are who 
enable law enforcement to be most effective because that is where they 
get most of their information.
  I will admit that people don't communicate with law enforcement as 
much as they should, and it hurts us all. The reasons for that are this 
breakdown in trust, which is exacerbated by the military equipment and 
by the military mindset, both of those going hand in hand.

                              {time}  2100

  Now, how do we stop it?
  First, by stopping the flow of that free military equipment onto our 
streets. We must cap that. I am not here to say that law enforcement 
should not have what it needs in order to do what it is supposed to do, 
and that is to protect and serve, but it should not have a pipeline 
directly between the Department of Defense and law enforcement which 
supplies equipment to law enforcement, leaving out the civilian 
authority to make the determination of whether or not the equipment is 
needed.
  So that is what the 1033 program does. That is what President Obama's 
executive order, which tracks the language of the Stop Militarizing Law 
Enforcement Act, does, and that is to stop that flow and return control 
of the process of acquisition of law enforcement equipment back to the 
hands of the civilian authority. So that is the first thing that we 
need to do.
  Mr. Speaker, the second thing we need to do is to ensure good 
analysis of the personnel that we have doing the law enforcement, 
because as I said, if you have been to a war zone, the statistics show 
that many of those who return from the battle suffer from post-
traumatic stress and other illnesses that affect the mental health of 
the people. So we must take better care of the mental health of our law 
enforcement personnel, having been deployed or not. Being involved in 
law enforcement is very stressful, and sometimes that mental health can 
break down and people start making bad decisions. So we really must get 
a handle on that in this country.
  Then once we get a handle on the militarization, there are some 
structural issues that need to be dealt with. One is the loss of 
confidence in the criminal justice process, i.e., the grand jury, the 
secret grand jury process as it relates to law enforcement officers, 
because what has become clear is that whenever there has been a killing 
of a civilian by law enforcement officer, it often results--or it most 
often results--in a finding of justifiable homicide. Indeed, most 
killings by law enforcement are justifiable; there is no question about 
that. But there is also no question about the fact that some of the 
killings are unjustifiable. When they are unjustifiable, they need to 
be dealt with in accordance with the law, which means prosecution.
  The problem that we get with law enforcement officers who have acted 
outside of the law and have committed a killing, what we get is a 
finding that the killing was justified despite the clear evidence to 
the contrary. I am not going to cite any specific cases, but I will say 
that these cases are well-known to the public. They appear on video. 
Even if your eyes deceive you and the killing was justified, you are 
certainly justified in not having confidence in the process by which 
the finding that the killing was justified was rendered through. 
Basically I am talking about a secret grand jury process. That is why I 
filed the Grand Jury Reform Act, to get at this secret grand jury 
process and to bring transparency into the process.
  Now, what usually happens, or what is the course of conduct in a 
police killing case, is that the killing itself will be investigated 
first, and oftentimes only by the very law enforcement agency that 
employed the officer involved in the incident. So what you have are 
friends and coworkers investigating each other.
  So when that happens, it tends to not be impartial. It tends to be 
biased in favor of the accused. What usually happens is, despite what 
may be clear about the facts, the decision always comes down as a 
justifiable homicide by the law enforcement agency that is rendering 
the decision against its own.
  Then the case goes to the local grand jury or to the local 
prosecutor, who is well-known and knows well the law enforcement agents 
involved who may be the subject of the investigation. They know each 
other. They work together regularly to bring cases before the grand 
jury.
  So when an officer is brought before the grand jury, often that 
officer is known to and by the district attorney. And even if not 
known, the fact that they are law enforcement gives them an inherent 
benefit; it gives them credibility; it gives them an edge, a positive 
edge, with the prosecution.
  So the prosecutor then takes the investigation by the law enforcement 
agency that knows and loves the officer, takes that investigation 
before a grand jury in a secret proceeding. No one is in there from the 
public to understand the quality of the evidence being presented, 
whether or not there is any evidence being presented. We have to just 
simply rely on the result that comes out of the grand jury proceeding 
because the grand jury proceedings are secret by law. Nothing that 
happens inside can be revealed.
  So it is a process that usually results in what we all are awaiting, 
and that is an exoneration of the police officer despite the clear 
evidence to the contrary. Once you have that determination, it is a 
closed case. So when you have that happening repeatedly over and over 
again over the course of time, it erodes public confidence in the 
criminal justice process.
  So my legislation, the Grand Jury Reform Act, would simply mandate 
that whenever there is a killing during the course of a policeman's use 
of his or her authority in the line of work, in the line of duty, 
whenever there is a killing, then there would have to be appointed an 
independent law enforcement agency, the top law enforcement agency of 
that particular State, to take over the investigation and to perform 
the investigation. That would give it a little more sense of being 
impartial.
  Once that impartial investigation has concluded, then the matter 
would be presented to a judge in open court by a special prosecutor 
appointed by

[[Page 7496]]

the Governor, who would then be charged with presenting that 
independent investigation to a judge in a probable cause hearing in 
open court. And that judge could then make a determination of whether 
or not probable cause existed; and if it did or if it did not, that 
judge would then issue a written finding of fact and deliver the case 
back to the local prosecutor who would then, in accordance with 
existing State law, proceed through the secret grand jury process or 
whatever other process was available to that district attorney--who is 
elected by the people, by the way.
  So this probable cause hearing would enable there to be some 
transparency so that the public would understand, hear the evidence and 
see the evidence. Then there would be accountability that would be 
established on behalf of the people based on what the elected 
prosecutor decided to do with the case.
  So it is hard to hold a local prosecutor accountable after a secret 
grand jury process, and the only thing you can rely upon is the earnest 
presentation in a press conference by the prosecutor that we did our 
best, we presented the evidence, and the grand jury came back finding 
that the killing was justified.
  We need more than that. We saw that in the case of Michael Brown in 
Ferguson where they did release the grand jury transcripts, and you 
could see where the evidence, a boatload or a truckload, a dump truck 
of evidence was just dumped on the confused grand jury members who were 
charged on a law that was not even applicable, given bad law upon which 
to decide the case.
  So we saw what happened in the grand jury proceeding in that case, 
and that, ladies and gentlemen, is not the only time I am sure that 
there has been abuse within the grand jury room. But we will never know 
because it is secret.
  Lastly, I have filed a bill which is called the Police Accountability 
Act. What it would do would be to provide another tool for Federal 
prosecutors to be able to prosecute law enforcement officers for the 
offense of murder and all of the lesser included offenses should it 
appear that the process within the State did not work.
  So those three bills I have discussed.
  Now I see my colleague has arrived, Sheila Jackson Lee, who, out of 
Houston, Texas, has ascended to the top spot, the ranking membership on 
the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, upon which I also serve along 
with her. So with that, I will yield to the gentlewoman from Houston.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished 
gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has approximately 
4 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia.
  He is right. We serve on the Judiciary Committee. He serves with 
great distinction as the ranking member on the Regulatory Reform, 
Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee, and I have the privilege of 
working and serving with him on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland 
Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.
  Although we have been working on these issues for any number of 
years, he is a practicing lawyer, a graduate of the distinguished 
Thurgood Marshall School of Law, which I have the privilege of 
representing. We know that we are now in a significant moment of 
history, and that is, if I might use language that is not particularly 
legislative, we can't fool around.
  There are issues that the American public, I believe, want remedies 
for, and that is persons who are civilians and persons who are law 
enforcement officers.

                              {time}  2115

  The police accountability hearing that we just held, Mr. Speaker, 
held in front of the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday--and we thanked 
Chairman Goodlatte and we thanked Ranking Member Conyers for heeding 
our voices asking for this hearing. It was a hearing of information, 
but I think it did evidence that there is a divide that must be 
bridged.
  Today, I stand on the floor to acknowledge and honor, Mr. Johnson, a 
fallen officer in my district. None of us want to consent to actions 
against law enforcement officers in the line of duty protecting our 
communities and our Nation.
  At the same time, I believe that we have the opportunity to confront 
serious issues developing a roadmap for better police community 
relations. In addition to the legislation that I know Mr. Johnson has 
already elaborated on--and I support him in his efforts--we will be 
looking at legislation that deals with holding the standard matrix to 
provide a roadmap of training for police officers and law enforcement 
officers from deescalation, to ideas of interaction with community, 
professional training, educational training.
  We will also, hopefully, pass the CADET bill, which talks about 
gathering the appropriate data related to excessive force being used by 
civilians or police officers and using that material to be able to 
formulate the right kind of approach to protect all.
  In addition, I just introduced today the Private Prison Information 
Act, which indicates that the same requirements for the Federal prison 
system should be for the private, nonpublic prison system providing 
reports of injuries or behavior that should be reported, and we hope 
that bill will move quickly.
  We have also introduced a good time, early release bill that argues 
for the early release dealing with incarcerated persons responding to 
mass incarceration, which we believe is very important. This deals with 
a certain age.
  I am also introducing, Mr. Johnson, a bill that indicates 1 day for 1 
day; if you have 54 days of good time, then you get 54 days. Now, it is 
not the case.
  Let me just say this, as I yield back to you, we will not pass 
legislation unless we can all understand each other's pain. The 
horrific pain of losing law enforcement officers and them not going 
home to their families, I mourn--the horrific pain of a Michael Brown 
or Eric Garner and a Tamir Rice and a Walter Scott and any number of 
others--and, of course, Freddie Gray.
  What we need to do is, in understanding that pain, not be accusatory 
and get bills before the Judiciary Committee to make our system the 
best justice system in the world. That is what I would like to see 
happen. I know that you, as a practicing lawyer and who have addressed 
these issues, would like to see that happen as well.
  I would like to join you on the floor over and over again for these 
kinds of Special Orders, to speak to our colleagues about getting 
something done, passing comprehensive criminal reform, getting it done 
to answer the pain of all Americans.
  We honor those who have lost their lives, and we honor the men and 
women in uniform who wear the uniform on our behalf, to be able to walk 
alongside us in dignity.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________