Mr. Chair,

I rise in opposition to this bill on behalf of those of my constituents who are members of local law enforcement agencies. The assertion that local law enforcement agencies are more prone to committ acts of abuse is outrageous, and I would challenge the authors of this bill to provide documented proof of their assertions. The authors have stated, "Whereas, 90% of abuse by law enforcement officials in the state of Florida alone is caused by county, town, and city officers..." Simply because 90% of abuse by law enforcement officials in Florida is caused by local law enforcement doesn't mean that those statistics are the same for other states.

It is my belief that the assertion that local law enforcement agencies are more prone to allegations of abuse than state law enforcement agencies simply because of the scope of their law enforcement. As a former member of the law enforcement community in the State of Wisconsin, I can say that our State Patrol does not deal with local law enforcement; they focus their efforts on patrolling our State's highways and interstates, therefore they are less likely to be involved in situations that may result in allegations of abuse than a local law enforcement officer.

Additionally, this bill states, "Whereas, each year reports of abuse by law enforcement officers are increased by at least 6%." Is this bill being based simply on reports of abuse, or actual documented incidents of abuse? False claims of police brutality and abuse are common, but that does not mean that they are legitimate. While no one is denying that police abuse does happen, I feel that this bill is relying on faulty evidence to reach the conclusions that it does.

The problem of abuse by law enforcement officers is not going to be solved simply by melding all law enforcement agencies into one state-controlled entity, because the problem is an issue of weeding out those officers who are committing abusive acts. This bill nobly intentioned but misguided nonetheless.

I yield.

This post has been edited by ZWisniewski on Dec 1 2004, 03:17 PM

Mr Chair

I rise in support of this Bill. At a time when law enforcement is getting ever more powerful and even militarized on a nationwide level this Bill is a very timely response to protect the American citizen from abusive excesses of power that we all know happens

I Yield

Mr. Chair...

Wouldn't this be extremly devistating to local economy?

I yield.

Mr. Chair,

I rise with a question for the Gentleman from Massachusets. Sir, how would this bill as written "protect the American citizen from abusive excesses of power that we all know happens"?

There are no measure contained within this bill that would sanction those who engage in abuse of power, nor would this legislation curb acts of police violence or abuse. This bill is fatally flawed, because it does not address the issue in a meaningful way.

I would also like to concur with the gentleman from Minnesota in that this bill could be harmful to the local economies by putting law enforcement officers out of work. Additionally, I would like to add that I'm sure the unions that represent the officers this bill would affect would be vehemently opposed to this bill.

I yield.

Mr. Chair,

I rise in opposition to this legislation. Abuse by police is a serious matter, but I do not think that this bill will address the problems. I do not think that this body has the authority to determine how states will police their own citizens.

I yield

Mr. Chair;

I motion to table this bill indefinitely.

I yield.

Mr. Chairman,

This bill, I'd note, doesn't actually do anything specific. Yeah, police abuse is bad. What are we going to do to stop it?

This bill, I think we can safely say, doesn't answer that question.

As such, I second the motion to table.

Mr Chair

I move to untable this Bill. In response to the Gentleman from Wisconsin this Bill is an attempt to fight police abuses thru centralization. It would be easier to hold the police more accountable for their behavior this way.

I Yield

Mr. Chairman,

I second the motion to table this piece of legislation.

In response to the gentleman from Massachusets, I would like for him to explain to me how centralization alone is going to curb incidents of police abuse. As for his argument that this bill would allow for more accountability, I say that there is already a high level of police accountability in place. True reform of law enforcement abuses of power must be addressed at the source of the problems, rather than trying to slap a bandaid on a broken arm. This bill will do nothing to curb police abuses of power.

I yield.

We shall vote on the motion to table this bill. Three days.

The motion to table this bill indefinately has passed.