The whole thing i was saying went right over the head and you prove my case again. All that was missing was another cheap shot or a bucket of chicken. Back. D the gentleman yields. The question occurs on the amendment. Im sorry. Thewhat purpose does gentleman from california seek recognition . The gentleman is recognized. Chairman, 13 years ago i partnered with the California State Senate democrats in advocating for an open records act for complaints against Police Officers. Five years ago i cosponsored Hank Johnsons stop military rising the police act militarizing the police act. If you are seeking bipartisan support for police reform, you would have it. If you had sought consultation and compromise and cooperation, if you reached across the aisle, you would have found many sincere allies. Not only did you not offer republicans a seat at the table, you have not offered her publicans seats in the committee room, disenfranchising many of us who thought this issue was too important to phone in. I agree with several provisions to this bill, but i disagree with a lot of the sentiments expressed here today by majority members. One of theforces are most trusted institutions in our nation for a reason. The vast portion of Police Officers are good and decent people motivated by a desire to protect and serve our communities. To characterize them as systemically racist or systemically abusive is an insult to them and to our society. Without Law Enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no civilization. Demoralizing and demonizing the very people who every day put their lives on the line to assure the safety and rights of every citizen is an insult to those who serve and is destructive to the foundations of our civilization. I reject the notion america is systemically racist. Of everye are racist, color in every society. Side of ourbasest human nature. No nation has struggled harder to transcend that nature and to isolate and ostracize its racists then have americans. Founders placed principles in the declaration of independence they believed would someday produce a nation of free men and women of all races and religions together enjoying the blessings of liberty and the equal protection of our laws. Lincoln denounced any other claim as, quote, having an evil tendency if not an evil design. Design tendency and evil are exactly what the radical left have reintroduced to our society and it is tearing us apart. My views on Law Enforcement were shaped when i had the honor to work for the former Los Angeles Police chief ed davis. His approach to Law Enforcement proved very, very effective. During the time he was chief in los angeles, while crime skyrocketed nationally, 50 , he actually brought it down in los angeles. He believed in the policing principle of sir robert peel, that the police are an extension of the community. Chief davis believed that and practiced it. He introduced Neighborhood Watch , enlisting citizens to work in partnership with police. Plantroduced the basic that matched patrol officers with individual neighborhoods so they would become a familiar and recognized and trusted presence in each neighborhood. I believe the closer we adhere to these principles, the more effective Law Enforcement becomes, the fewer abuses we will see. Qualified immunity, the need to open Police Records of misconduct, the restrictions of no knock warrants, the restrictions of introducing military hardware, these provisions were presented as standalone bills, i think you would be able to demonstrate significant bipartisan support. This, bycizing all of byluding the minority, building these into a bill has a long list of operations and procedures upon every Police Department in the nation makes it simply unsupportable. Getting back to peels principles, policing is a uniquely communitybased function. New york, new york and weed patch, california are very different. They have different needs and challenges and standards. Ensuring protection for all of our citizens is a unique federal function, but running and micromanaging every local Police Department is far beyond our competence or authority. Even though there are provisions of the bill that i support, i cannot support the attempt to federalize our local Police Departments, denigrate Law Enforcement officials, and politicize what should be an issue bringing all of us together. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Oppose, no. The nos have it. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Lofgren . Ms. Lofgren votes no. Ms. Jackson lee . Ms. Jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen . Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson of georgia . Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutch . Mr. Deutch votes no. Ms. Bassi echo ms. Bass votes no. Mr. Richmond . Mr. Jeffrey . Mr. Jeffries votes no. Swalwell . Mr. Swalwell votes no. Mr. Lou . Mr. Lou votes no. Mr. Raskin . Mr. Raskin votes no. Miss jayapal . Miss jayapal votes no. Ms. Deming . Ms. Deming votes no. Mr. Caray of no. Ms. Scanlan . Ms. Scanlan votes no. Ms. Garcia . Ms. Garcia votes no. Mr. Negus . Mr. Negus votes no. Ms. Mcbath . Ms. Mcbath votes no. Mr. Stanton . Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Dean . Ms. Dean votes no. Ms. Mcardle powell . Ms. Mcardle powell votes no. Ms. Escobar . Ms. Escobar votes no. Mr. Jordan . R. Jordan votes yes aye. Abot votes mr. Gomer votes yes. Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Buck . Mr. Buck votes aye. Ms. Robie . Ms. Robie votes no. Mr. Gates votes aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Ms. Lisko votes aye. Votes aye. Dollar mr. Klein votes aye. Mr. Armstrong . Mr. Steube . Mr. Steube votes yes. Whore there any members have not voted and wish to vote . The clerk will report. Mr. Richmond, you are not recorded. Mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 25 nos. Any other amendments in the nature of a substitute . I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment to hr 7120 offered by mr. Gomer of texas. Stage 135, line 16 through 23, insert the following. Whoever commits murder in the commission of a kidnapping shall be punished by any term of years including life or death. Recognizedleman is objection to the amendment. The gentleman is recognized for the purpose of explaining. There have been allegations that we are not serious about dealing with the issue. Amendment off the the nature of the substitute, title iv says justice for victims of the lynching act. And then it goes through from with129 to page 135, numerous findings and my amendment does not change any of those. Those are left intact. Section 403,135, it says chapter 13 of title 18 u. S. Code amending at the end of the following. Whoever conspires with another person to violate certain sections shall be punished in the same manner as a completed violation of such section, except maximum prison is less than 10 years, the person may be in prison for not more than 10 years. Now, the original bill that the congressman had was a much better bill. The floor, why did this get water down . It should not be a 10 year sentence. It should be life. In his original bill it was life. But it got watered down because apparently the democratic leadership said if you want to vote, you have to water it down. So he did. So this was really more of a symbolic addition of a vote on the floor and i think it is legitimate to have it in this bill. But not like this. Whateds to be closer to congressman rush originally had. It addresses just how heinous a lynching is. Lets get serious. And i voted against it because it is absurd to have a 10 year maximum mentioned and only talk about conspiracy and say we dealt with the emmett till situation. Was a 14yearold africanamerican in 1955 on summer vacation. He was visited visiting relatives in the mississippi delta region. He spoke to a 21yearold young woman who was white, merritt, married, and proprietor of a Small Grocery store print what happened in the store was of great dispute. He was accused of flirting or whistling and the woman originally alleged he tossed touched her waist. To his house went and abducted this poor 14yearold boy, took him away, beat him, mutilated him, and shot him in the head and sank his body in the river. These men publicly admitted in an interview that they had killed emmett till. Bill, the way it is right now, had been passed into law before this happened in 1955, it would not have had any effect. A 10 year maximum for conspiring . Serious and it puts a serious penalty on this. Legacyive emmett tills something more serious than conspiracy and 10 year max of something more than that. Lets do it right. Those men deserve to be found guilty and they deserved the Death Penalty. The eye,two people in themwhite, and sentenced to death. I had one tried for capital murder was black, and i sentenced him to life. In this case, i would have no problem looking these guys in the eyes and sentencing them to death. Lets get serious. You want to do something serious . You say we are not serious . I say you are not serious unless you join me in putting a serious legacy onto the name of emmett till and the hard work, many years that bobby rush has put into making something where it should be. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. Lynching is a heinous, heinous crime. Murder of black people and africanamericans is obviously a heinous crime. This bill establishes for the first time in federal law the crime of lynching. There is a great step forward in addition to the other provisions of the bill, which we have been discussing and are great steps forward, to stopping systemic racism in this country, and stopping the murder by Police Officers so many black africanAmerican People. Lynching was made a federal crime by this bill for the first time it was very necessary to do that. But we are not going to make this bill barbarous by having a Death Penalty in it. The Death Penalty is not deserving of existing in the United States and his application over the years has been systemically racist. I will not yield. It is barbarous. It is essential that we make lynching a federal crime, which we do in this bill. And that is why we are doing it. We are not going to contaminate the great act of making lynching a federal crime by enacting a barbarous Death Penalty. I yield back. Who seeks recognition . For what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition . I appreciate my friend from ohio yielding. Look, i understand democrats are in the majority. I would like this amendment adopted to give real teeth to lynching laws. And if striking or death from the language of the amendment will get the chairman, since you say your big objection is it is barbarous because it includes the Death Penalty, you are in the majority, i understand that, and as a consequence i will strike death off of it if it will get your vote, mr. Chairman, and i would yield to you for that question. Will you vote yes if we eliminate the Death Penalty . The gentlemans time is his own. Mr. Yield it to you, chairman. With regard to this amendment, you are in the majority, and if i dont have your approval, apparently nobody is going to go different from you. It is groupthink. I will strike the Death Penalty part from this, since that was your big objection in your comments, if that will get your vote. Will you vote for it if i eliminate the Death Penalty from this amendment . So that it has a maximum life sentence. Does the gentleman yield to me . Yes. The answer is no. This section of the bill was fashioned by the two authors of the bill and it does the exact job we want it to do. I wish we were serious about putting real teeth into i reclaim my time. Obviously this is a serious amendment, meant to put serious teeth into this bill. I think what happened to emmett till deserves the Death Penalty and should in the future, but elections have consequences. You are in the majority. You wont vote for a Death Penalty. Im willing to strike that, because i want teeth in it, not just some symbolism for the death of emmett till. This recognizes what happened to him as lynching and it will punish it. I yield to my friend from texas. Theres really a number of reasons that you have criminal law and you enforce penalties. One is societal retribution to make the society whole. You want to make sure that that individual, criminal, does not repeat the same type of crime, so you have some kind of penalty, or you have a general deterrent because you dont want anyone else to look and say they can do something and get away with it. I think the offer to make this, remove the Death Penalty and make this a life sentence, is eminently rational and supportable, and we should do that. I mean, the emmett till case was horrific. The first time i heard about it, it was absolutely mind blowingly devastating. But if you are not going to do it because you think the Death Penalty is barbarous, which is what i thought the chair said, i just point out that the officers in minnesota, one is subjected to life in prison or even the Death Penalty. I only raise that because i think in a lynching case, to say the max you can get is 10 years is not going to provide the general deterrence that we need in our society. Thats why i support what my friend from texas has said. This is critical. If you dont want to include the Death Penalty, surely someone who engages in such a heinous crime as lynching should face up to a life sentence in prison. I reclaim my time. I agree with the gomer to amendment. Lynching is a hate crime, which should carry more than a 10 year sentence. And the fact he made a good faith offer withdrawing to death sentence and it was rejected by the chair is almost incomprehensible. I would ask unanimous consent, just so that it has a good chance of passing, that we strike the two words or death from my amendment. A point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. Chairman. The gentleman is recognized. If you remove the Death Penalty, it is already a case sb1201, kidnapping is already punishable by prisoner for a term or for life. Your amendment would just repeat what exists. It makes lynching a federal crime punishable my point is, it involves kidnapping, which is already punishable by life in prison under federal law. It is not specified as lynching. This makes it lynching. Will the gentleman yield back . Im hoping for a ruling on the unanimous consent request. I asked unanimous consent to strike the last two words of the amendment, or death. I object. The objection is heard. Who seeks recognition . The gentlelady is recognized. First, i want to remove the objection i had on the overall amendment, and then i want to speak the obvious. The heinous and violent and vile killing of emmett till more than 50 to 70 years ago, the fact that his name is invoked and we are talking about this is shameful that we had to wait this long, but we are grateful for the proponents of this bill, the senator from new jersey and the congressperson from illinois who have found that to get a federal statute against lynching is something that they have worked for for a very long time. I think it is important to clarify that the statute that we are proposing in this legislation is an addon. It means that state and local governments, whatever jurisdiction it occurs in, can proceed against this vile perpetrator. This touches a chord in my heart because i have been in the last 48 hours, two young men of color hung in my district. Hung in my district. I could come here and cry before everyone. Im getting texts from my constituents about what to do. I am grateful that the federal bureau of investigation has responded, but i also want to say, and my colleagues, i want you to be able to understand what it means to the george floyd family to maybe not even have gotten a call, but the first view they had of his dying moments of saying i cant breathe might have been unsolicited filming by a young 17yearold. Or to be in the position to get the phone call of tamir rice or Trayvon Martins mother. All these mothers got phone calls, or some notice, some unsympathetic notice. Or laquan mcdonald, who had at least 20 shots, if my recollection serves me, running away. Or mr. Brookss eightyearold daughter, who was looking for a birthday party, who, as mr. Johnson said, mr. Brooks was very cooperative. Do,all a guardian had to someone acting transparently as a guardian could have accepted in passing those tests about whether he was under the influence and let him walk home to his family. This is where we are today. We are not answering the pain of mothers, and i have called them off. Walter scott, freddie gray, those in my district, donald ray, and pamela turner, people who died in my congressional area. So what i believe is that we have to get justice today. It is a shame how long emmett till had to wait. It is a shame that in the midst of george floyd and the pain of his family, another family within days were suffering the same violence. It is well to acknowledge good policing and the heroes, but as the mother of a black son, and there are others here, my dear friend, my colleague, who sits here in reality for what she experienced. Dont underestimate that call or that neighbor saying, did you see what was on tv, and they not know what happened. They send their child out wherever it may be, getting cigarettes, playing in a park, tamir rice, with the bb gun. Whoever it was, going to a store in minneapolis. So, i just hope we can get back to George Floyds justice and policing act, because mr. Chairman, if we dont, the calls will keep coming. Some mother will pick up the phone, some father will pick up the phone, some grandmother will pick up the phone, or maybe they will get somebody running down the street knocking on their door, saying,