By Bradley Byrne These last few weeks have riveted the country's attention on police brutality. The murder of George Floyd was an atrocity, and unfortunately it's not the first one. As we have so often in our history, it's time for America to respond with appropriate and reasonable reform. It's not time to lose our heads, however. The "defund the police" movement is not the answer. My colleagues Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia, all members of the Congressional Black Caucus, spoke out against it last week. Ms. Norton said that the poorest of the people she represents live in the parts of town that experience the most homicides and crime. "I'm not sure I would hear them saying we ought to reduce the number of police, I may hear them saying just the opposite," she said. Neither does it make sense to paint all of law enforcement with a broad and negative brush. We all need law enforcement and we are blessed that the vast majority of our officers are good professionals, often doing their jobs under dangerous circumstances. Last year 89 officers died in the line of duty in the U.S. Many more were injured. Most of us don't work in a job where it is unclear whether we will return home at the end of the day safe and sound. But they do. It is undeniable, however, that there are rogue officers treating black people unprofessionally, injuring and, yes, even killing them. That's not acceptable. We need to make reforms to our law enforcement system, and some of those reforms will indeed cost more, not less, money. This issue is primarily a local one as that is where most law enforcement officers work. Better and stricter standards, better training on those standards, and better discipline of officers who act outside those standards, all must occur locally. There are some things we can do at the Federal level, however, and there are a number of recent proposals. I believe there is a significant level of concern across both parties and enough consensus around some of the proposals that we should be able to pass a bill which is broadly bipartisan. The fact that the Democrats filed their bill with no effort to consult and work with Republicans, indeed against direct appeals to include us, is very disappointing, but we can't let that stop us from finding common ground, without which there will be no change in the law. We are presently scheduled to vote on a police reform bill next week, and while the Democrats have filed this purely partisan bill, I hope there will be a real opportunity for dialogue. I support a Federal ban on lynching, and we should condition Federal grants to local law enforcement on adherence to higher standards, particularly on the use of force. More Federal money should go for training to these higher standards. We need to collect and report more and timely information on the use of force and more Federal money should go to pay for body cameras. We should ban racial profiling but do it in such a manner that the ban wouldn't preclude the appropriate use of information about specific suspects or specific crimes. I'm open to discussing some reform to the legal doctrine of "qualified immunity" which shields law enforcement officers from legal action when they are acting in the line of duty. The doctrine needs more clarity which a well-drawn statute could bring. But I oppose outright repeal because that would leave officers who have acted appropriately the subjects of endless lawsuits which would likely result in these officers pulling back from doing their jobs. For this same reason I am concerned about lowering the standard for criminal actions against law enforcement under the Civil Rights statutes. Presently, prosecutions against law enforcement officers require proof that the officer acted "willfully," but some of the new proposals would lower that to proof of "reckless disregard." Go look at the legal definition of the latter and it will leave you scratching your head as to what the courts mean. You don't want a law enforcement officer in the middle of a violent situation, where he is present to protect innocent lives, to be scratching his head. If we are going to change that standard at all it needs to be very clear and precise. Go back to what Ms. Norton said. Who is going to be harmed the most if law enforcement pulls back, if they retreat from their duty? It's the poor, who are all too often the victims of crime and are also likely to be from a racial minority. Let's say it plainly. Black people are of equal moral value as white people. It's Biblical, it's American. And to treat people differently based on their race is morally and legally repugnant. To injure or kill them for the same reason goes against everything we stand for. We are Americans, Black, White, Asian, and Hispanic. We are liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and everything in between. All of us are the beneficiaries of the American system of justice, however imperfect it may seem, because it's the ultimate expression of civilization. Due process, the equal application of the law, limits on the power of the state (that includes law enforcement), and the basic principles and of our common humanity underly this system. We stand with one another. With black people wronged by rogue law enforcement officers. With the vast majority of law enforcement who throw themselves at danger to protect us and conduct themselves with professionalism and with little pay. And we should do all this using, not losing, our heads.

For weeks, Democrats have been holding secretive impeachment proceedings behind closed doors, out of sight of the American people. Chairman Adam Schiff of the House Select Committee on Intelligence has been interviewing witnesses in a restricted area deep beneath the Capitol in a small room called a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, known as a SCIF. The SCIF is specifically designed for classified briefings and other extremely sensitive committee business, not for non-classified witness interviews. It shouldn't be this way. In the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings, the House held a formal vote to begin. In addition to giving the inquiry legitimacy, the vote outlined the rights not only of the minority but of the accused. In the Nixon and Clinton impeachment hearings, the respective minority parties were allowed to call witnesses, issue subpoenas, and access hearing information. Additionally, each President and their teams were allowed to participate to ensure fairness and due process. How can someone defend themselves -- in this proceeding or in the mind of the public -- if they do not know what those accusing them are even saying? Nancy Pelosi and Schiff's reasoning for enacting this scheme is obvious. By locking down impeachment proceedings, Democrats control what information the public receives. Open hearings have been disastrous for Democrats. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony was an embarrassment. Sometimes the truth hurts! But by choosing to interview witnesses in a classified room -- even though they admit the information is not secret in nature -- Democrats hold all the cards. The public receives only whatever Democrats leak to their media allies. Lies, misinformation, and cherry-picked snippets are all the public -- even most members of Congress like myself -- can access. Efforts to impeach a duly-elected President behind closed doors require all Americans to get off the sidelines to end this scheme. Republicans want to get the truth out. Americans deserve it. I've had enough, and I took action. Last week, a group of Republicans led by my colleague Matt Gaetz held a press conference outside the entrance to the SCIF to bring attention to the Democrats' scheme to hide the truth. After the press conference, leaving the media behind, Republicans entered the restricted area outside the hearing. Once inside, a staff member informed me I was unable to enter the hearing but would not say why or what rule prohibited me and the Members of Congress with me from entering. So I led my colleagues in. Once inside, we quietly and orderly prepared to observe the proceedings. Nonetheless, Democrats were dumbfounded. Instead of continuing, Schiff shut down the proceeding. Despite me asking him to stay, he walked out of the room! It is noteworthy how the mainstream media reported our actions. Without being inside, the media was given free rein to report whatever they wanted with no accountability. CNN falsely reported I yelled in the face of Adam Schiff. Other fake news outlets mistakenly claimed we refused to turn over our phones, which is not true. I turned over my phone to staff of the Intelligence Committee. Could there be a better example of why we need to have open impeachment hearings in the public? Our actions are working. Within hours, after public outcry, Democrats announced a tentative plan to open hearings in several weeks. However, a vague promise for future transparency isn't good enough. The public narrative is continuing to be misshaped through leaks and lies. We must end secret proceedings now. Democrats cannot continue withholding non-classified information from Members of Congress and the public. The American people should be demanding open hearings. You can bet I'll keep fighting in Washington for an open, fair process so the American people can have the truth. This is too important to sit on the sidelines.