PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 11, 2014
Camera Authorization and Maintenance Act of 2014 or the CAM Act of 2014 - Prohibits a state or local government that does not require its law enforcement officers to use body-worn cameras from receiving any grant from the Attorney General in the following fiscal year, subject to a financial hardship waiver.
Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribes for the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of body-worn cameras for law enforcement officers. Sets forth requirements for the wearing and use of such body cameras and for recordings made. Requires funds to be awarded to each qualifying local government with fewer than 100,000 residents, with any remaining funds awarded to other qualifying applicants on a pro rata basis.
Establishes in the Department of Justice (DOJ) a task force to:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
provide recommendations on community policing;
develop proper body-worn camera training protocol;
study the impact that citizen review boards could have on investigating cases of alleged police misconduct; and
conduct a survey, one year after implementation of the body camera requirement policy, to determine best practices and policy effectiveness.
Directs the Comptroller General to submit a report on the Department of Defense Excess Personal Property Program that includes information on which jurisdictions equipment is sent to, the value of equipment sent to each jurisdiction, the level of training provided, and how the equipment is used.
People & committees
Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5] · D–MO
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, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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 the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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.
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: Aug 12, 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.5865 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.5865 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.5865 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.5865 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.