PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 12, 2021
Congressional Oversight of Unjust Policing Act
This bill establishes the U.S. Commission on Unjust Policing to investigate law enforcement activities and decisions related to the security breach at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Specifically, the commission must investigate decisions made by leadership of the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP), the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Department of Homeland Security leading up to and during the siege at the Capitol, including an assessment of whether conscious and unconscious bias was a factor in the miscalculation of the risk posed by protesters to Members of Congress and their staff. The commission must also investigate whether current USCP officers have ties to white supremacist and other extremist groups, movements, and organizing efforts, and whether any USCP officers neglected their duty and colluded with protestors or other law enforcement entities.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Further, the commission must recommend specific measures and reforms related to realigning (1) USCP priorities and practice to address disparate use of force and surveillance targets in and around the Capitol; and (2) USCP recruitment, hiring, and retention policies and practices to address conscious and unconscious biases.
People & committees
Rep. Bowman, Jamaal [D-NY-16] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E34)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.276 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.276 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.276 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.276 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.