Categories Uncategorized

House passes four policing bills despite Democratic division

The House on Thursday moved four policing and public safety bills over the finish line after last-minute opposition from the “Squad” almost tanked the package, capping off months of negotiations between progressive and moderate Democrats.

The votes, all of which were bipartisan, came after members of the progressive “Squad” threatened to bring down a procedural vote to advance the legislation over concerns of a lack of accountability measures in the legislation, and opposition to the fast-track process used to consider two of the four bills.

Resistance from those progressives — Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) — delayed the procedural vote and debate for roughly three hours. 

Key negotiators announced a deal on the four policing and public safety bills on Wednesday, setting a floor vote after House leadership twice punted on the legislation earlier this year.

Moderates — especially those running in tight races this November — had been pushing for a vote on public safety measures for months, hoping to tout their pro-police bonafides on the campaign trail as an antidote to Republican attacks that Democrats want to “defund the police.”

But progressives were hesitant to funnel more money to law enforcement without ensuring that safeguards were in place to protect against police abuse.

After eleventh-hour negotiations that took place in the final legislative days before the midterm elections, the two Democratic camps struck a deal on four separate measures.

The bills now head to the Senate, though they are not high on the priority list. Even if they were brought up for consideration in the upper chamber, it is unlikely 10 Republicans would come on board to break a filibuster.

The first bill — titled the Invest to Protect Act and sponsored by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) — passed in a 360-64 vote. Nine Democrats broke with the party and voted against the bill: Pressley, Ocasio-Cortez, Bush, Bowman, Tlaib and Reps. Mark Pocan (Wisc.), Andy Levin (Ill.), Maxine Waters (Calif.) and Steve Cohen (Tenn.).

Gottheimer’s legislation would allocate federal grants to small location law enforcement agencies that encompass fewer than 125 officers. The bill initially pertained to departments with no more than 200 officers, but the number was brought down during final negotiations.

Rep. Steven Horsford’s (D-Nev.) bill, titled the Break the Cycle of Violence Act, cleared the chamber in a 220-207 vote, with one Republican — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) — siding with Democrats in supporting the measure.

The Nevada Democrat’s legislation hands out grants for coordinated community violence initiatives in areas that see a disproportionate amount of homicides and community violence. The grants, from the Department of Health and Human Services, would be used to curb such behavior.

The third bill — sponsored by Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) and titled the Mental Health Justice Act — would award funds to train and assign mental health professionals to respond to situations involving individuals with special behavioral needs, rather than sending law enforcement personnel.

The measure passed 223-206, with three Republicans — including Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.) — joining all voting Democrats in supporting the measure.

And the fourth measure — dubbed the VICTIM Act and crafted Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) — instructs the Justice Department to create a grant program that would support technology being used to help local investigators solve cold cases, especially ones that pertain to gun violence.

Demings’ bill passed in a 250-178 vote, with 30 Republicans joining all Democrats present in supporting the legislation.

The sponsors of the four bills are all running in competitive races this November — Demings is challenging Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for his seat in the upper chamber, and the other three are vying for reelection.

Source: TEST FEED1

Pentagon: Putin's nuclear threat won't deter US aid to Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent threat to use nuclear weapons will not staunch U.S. aid to Ukraine, the Pentagon’s top spokesperson said Thursday. 

“In terms of the statements or the announcements coming out of Russia, it does not affect the commitment to continue working closely with our international partners and our allies on providing Ukraine with the support that it needs in their fight to defend their country,” Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder told reporters. 

Putin on Wednesday spoke about the possibility of using nuclear weapons during a speech in which he also announced the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of additional reservists for his war in Ukraine.

“The territorial integrity of our homeland, our independence and freedom will be ensured, I will emphasize this again, with all the means at our disposal. And those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the prevailing winds can turn in their direction,” Putin said. 

“I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction, and some components are more modern than those of the NATO countries,” Putin added.

The U.S. has been providing advanced rocket systems, drones, vehicles and ammunition to Ukraine, much to the Kremlin’s ire. The weapons have proved crucial in Ukraine’s successful push to take back large swaths of its territory since the start of the month.  

Ryder said U.S. officials remain focused on communicating with their Ukrainian counterparts, allies and partners on what they need, and Putin’s rhetoric will not affect that. 

“We will continue to have those conversations and we’ll continue to think through not only what they need in the medium-to-long-term, but also what they need now,” he said. “I don’t see those conversations being impacted by this situation.” 

Ryder also said U.S. officials are speaking with the Ukrainian government about what their military will need ahead of winter, which is expected to be brutal for soldiers on the front line. 

“We’re providing some winter gear, but we’ll continue to have those conversations and support them as we head into the winter months here,” he said.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Special master asks Trump team to back up claim FBI planted evidence

The special master assigned to review the documents taken during the August search of Mar-a-Lago is asking former President Trump to back up his claim that the FBI planted evidence on his Florida property.

Judge Raymond Dearie, the special master selected after being out forth by Trump, told his attorneys they would need to submit a sworn declaration that details “a list of any specific items set forth in the [FBI’s] detailed property inventory that plaintiff asserts were not seized from the premises.”

Trump made the insinuation just two days after his home was searched. 

“Everyone was asked to leave the premises, they wanted to be alone,” he wrote in a post on his social media platform, “without any witnesses to see what they were doing, taking or, hopefully not, ‘planting.’”

Trump asserted as recently as Wednesday evening during an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity that the FBI may have planted evidence during the search. 

“The problem that you have is they go into rooms — they won’t let anybody near — they wouldn’t even let them in the same building. Did they drop anything on those piles? Or did they do it later?” he said.

Neither Trump nor his attorneys have supplied any evidence to back such claims.

The plan from Dearie also asked for the attorneys to list a “description of contents or location within the premises where the item was found is incorrect” as well as to break down any property they say was taken during the search but not listed among the FBI’s inventory.

The request marks the second time Dearie has asked the Trump legal team to back its claims.

A Monday filing from Trump’s team indicated Dearie had asked the former president’s lawyers to explain whether he had in fact ever declassified the intelligence records in his home.

Earlier legal filings from Trump insinuated he may have done so but stopped short of fully making the claim.

Dearie expressed frustration during a Tuesday conference with both Trump’s team and the Justice Department.

Trump attorney James Trusty told Dearie that they were “not in the position” to explain the claim, as they would only do so in a motion to recover property if criminal charges are brought.

“Well, you did bring the lawsuit and make that claim,” Dearie responded, adding later, “You can’t have your cake and eat it.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Pelosi reaffirms support for Manchin side deal: 'No question'

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday signaled again her support for an effort by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to expedite energy infrastructure projects as part of a government spending package, even as dozens of House Democrats have opposed such a move.

Manchin released the text of his proposal Wednesday evening. The Speaker emphasized Thursday that House lawmakers are waiting to see the details of whatever package the Senate is able to pass, and she left open the possibility that the House could alter a Senate-passed bill.

Pelosi reiterated her support for the Manchin deal despite widespread liberal opposition in her own caucus, saying it was worth the concession to secure the centrist senator’s support for a massive health and climate bill, which President Biden signed into law last month. 

“We’ll have to see how it comes back from the Senate, and there may be room for negotiation,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “But I’m not walking away from $360 billion in support for saving the planet for our children.”

Pressed on whether she supports the deal, Pelosi was adamant. 

“I said I support it, yes. I said that right from the start,” she said. “There’s no question.”

The comments are sure to anger a number of progressive Democrats in the lower chamber, who are already furious that party leaders would support an effort to expedite fossil fuel projects amid a global climate crisis. Last week, a group of almost 80 liberals signed a letter urging Democratic leaders to divorce Manchin’s proposal from the spending package.

“These destructive provisions will allow polluting manufacturing and energy development projects to be rushed through before the families who are forced to live near them are even aware of the plans,” the liberals wrote.   

Pelosi, along with other Democratic leaders, had endorsed the side-deal with Manchin earlier in the summer, promising to vote before October on his proposal to fast-track energy projects, known as permitting reform. In return, Manchin dropped his long-held opposition to the much larger tax, health and climate legislation at the center of Biden’s domestic agenda, sending it to the president’s desk. 

The Speaker last week signaled she could back the Manchin deal if it was included in a Senate funding bill. Congress is racing to pass a short-term spending measure this month, and without congressional action, large parts of the federal government will shutter on Oct. 1.

On Thursday, Pelosi again suggested she could support the Manchin language as part of a spending bill, or continuing resolution (CR), highlighting the health and environmental provisions Democrats won as part of the larger Inflation Reduction Act. 

“This is historic,” she said. “We’re saving the planet with [a] record $360 billion … and generating jobs, and cleaner air and cleaner water and jobs and security for our country.” 

Democrats are hoping for the Senate to begin the process of moving the spending package through Congress, although GOP opposition to Manchin’s proposal has raised significant questions as to whether permitting reform can move through the upper chamber.

A “clean” CR, without the Manchin provision, would preclude a bitter internal fight among Democrats when the bill comes to the House — a dynamic Pelosi seemed to acknowledge on Thursday.

“Let’s see what happens in the Senate,” she said, “and then we will deal with what we have to do in the House.”

The Senate is expected to launch floor consideration next Tuesday, and Pelosi said the House is ready to move immediately if that’s the case. 

“We have same-day authority already built in, so we don’t have to delay it in any way,” she said. 

If the Senate stumbles in that effort, Pelosi added, “we will have to start it over here.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Kushner criticizes DeSantis's migrants flights: 'Have to remember that these are human beings'

Former White House adviser Jared Kushner called the move by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to send migrants from the southern border to Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., in protest of Biden’s immigration policies “very troubling” even as he advocated for former President Trump’s stringent immigration platform.  

“I personally watch what’s happening, and it’s very hard to see at the southern border … We have to remember that these are human beings, they’re people, so seeing them being used as political pawns one way or the other is very troubling to me,” Kushner, who is also Trump’s son-in-law, said Tuesday on Fox News’s “Outnumbered.”  

DeSantis chartered flights from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard last week, transporting about 50 migrants to the Democrat-led island south of Cape Cod.  

The Florida governor was following the lead of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R), who together have sent more than 10,000 migrants north to Washington, D.C., New York City and Chicago.  

Many Democrats have decried the Republican governors for using the migrants to wage their political protest — and Kushner’s comments Tuesday echoed some of those sentiments even as he pushed for his father-in-law’s border policies.

“People don’t talk enough about the fact that these people are lured into these journeys by the coyotes, they’re paying a lot of money. I think 80 percent of women are sexually assaulted along the way. They come into America, they don’t have papers, many of them are exploited … so it’s a very sad situation,” he said.

“Under President Trump, we had the lowest border crossings in history when he turned over the administration. The border was secure, it was very safe,” Kushner added. 

Kushner said that restarting wall-building efforts on the southern border would deter migrants coming into the country and “prevent a lot of death and prevent a lot of sexual exploitation.”

Source: TEST FEED1

House advances rule despite ‘Squad’ defections

House Democrats advanced a rule covering policing and public safety bills on Thursday after a vote was initially delayed because of opposition from a coalition of progressive Democrats.

Members of the far-left “Squad” voiced opposition to the lack of “accountability measures” in one of the four bills up for consideration, threatening to tank the entire package. They also took issue with how some of the bills were brought up through a fast-track process.

The chamber ultimately passed the rule in a 216-215-1 vote.

Democratic Reps. Cori Bush (Mo.), Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) joined Democrats in voting against the measure. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) voted present.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), another member of the squad, backed the rule, as did Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

A spokesperson Bush shortly before the vote was initially to take place said the congresswoman was opposed to one of the bills — sponsored by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) — and called for the other three measures to be considered separately.

Rule votes are typically partisan votes. While some Republicans are expected to vote in favor of some of the bills, they traditionally vote against rules even if they support the legislation.

The chamber must approve the rule before debating and holding final votes on each piece of legislation.

The Gottheimer bill would allocate federal grants to local law enforcement agencies that have fewer than 125 officers. Bush said it did not include basic measure to ensure accountability by police.

“Even the most barebones accountability measures like those included in the House-passed Justice in Policing Act were not incorporated into the Rep. Gottheimer bill, which would add nearly a quarter billion dollars in police funding over the next 5 years without addressing the crisis of police brutality — and this despite the strong and continued urging from civil rights and racial justice advocacy leaders to chart a more humane path,” Bush’s spokesperson wrote in a statement.

“As such, Congresswoman Bush maintains her opposition to that bill and supports decoupling its consideration from the other important public safety measures that the House should take up immediately,” the spokesperson added.

The procedural vote for the policing bills was initially scheduled to begin between 9:50 a.m. and 10 a.m., but the House went into recess at 9:55 a.m. The rule ultimately passed just before 1:30 p.m.

Democrats currently hold a small 221-212 majority in the House, which means the caucus can only afford to lose four members in any vote.

Speaking to reporters following the vote, Bush again pointed to the lack of police accountability in the Gottheimer bill.

“We weren’t the problem, because we feel like where is police accountability? You know, when does that happen? When does that come into play? When does that prioritize?” Bush said.

She said the bill allocates “unchecked, unmonitored money.”

Ocasio-Cortez took issue with two of the bills — including the Gottheimer measure — being brought to the floor through a fast-track process.

“I have not heard an explanation as to why those two bills aren’t being properly introduced to the floor on their own merits. And why must they be packaged with a piece of legislation whose final version no one saw before yesterday, who did not get introduced to committee, did not get debated, why we are doing this?” she said.

“And why are some people allowed to completely subvert our democratic processes internally, and why some of us sort of are held to higher standards than others?” she added.

When announcing a deal on Wednesday, key Democratic lawmakers noted that some of their colleagues may vote against the bills.

“Every member of the [Congressional Black Caucus] may not weigh in on it or vote for it — and I’m OK with that,” Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), the chairwoman of the Black Caucus, told reporters. “But we wanted to make sure we could say we’re doing the best we can at this time.”

Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), the sponsor of one of the bills under consideration, sounded a similar note in regards to her progressive colleagues, telling reporters that while some may defect, “a bulk” of the caucus was behind the deal.

Mike Lillis and Cheyanne Daniels contributed.

Source: TEST FEED1

Republicans lining up against Manchin's permitting reform bill

Senate Republicans are lining up against the permitting reform bill that centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) unveiled Wednesday evening, shortly before it is to be added to a must-pass government-funding bill scheduled for the floor next week.  

As a result, key Republicans say a stop-gap funding bill with Manchin’s language will not have enough support to pass.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) promised to attach Manchin’s permitting bill to a short-term government funding measure in exchange for Manchin’s vote last month for the Inflation Reduction Act, a sweeping climate and tax reform bill that had been a top priority for President Biden.  

But now it looks like Manchin’s bill is doomed because of growing opposition from Republicans, who say it doesn’t go far enough.  

Schumer would have to agree to strengthen Manchin’s bill to pick up more Republican votes.

“I can’t see how it’s going to pass,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an advisor to the GOP leadership.

Asked if Manchin’s bill could get enough, Republican votes to overcome an expected filibuster and pass the Senate, Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) replied: “Not even close.”  

“I think it does as much harm as good, if it does any good at all,” Cramer. “If you own a pipeline in West Virginia, it’s really great. Other than that, I don’t see a lot of value to it.”  

Manchin’s home-state colleague Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R) announced Thursday morning that she supports his permitting reform bill but most Republicans are coming out against the proposal.  

GOP senators say Capito is embracing Manchin’s proposal because it would approve the completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that would span more than 300 miles across West Virginia.  

But Senate Republicans who don’t benefit from that project are much more skeptical.  

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he’s a “no” vote, pointing out the bill does little for his home state.  

“I’d like more. I get nothing in South Carolina. I’ll be a no,” he said.  

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which Manchin chairs, said he has serious concerns about the centrist Democrat’s proposal. 

“I have a lot of concerns with it. Clearly it doesn’t do the sort of things that we need and I think in certain areas it makes it worse,” Barrasso said. 

“With the [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] overseeing electricity transmission lines, with giving the Fed the right to set prices so you have Red States like Wyoming having to subsidize Blue State energy like California, and I just can’t support that,” he added.  

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said he will vote against Manchin’s bill because it’s reforms don’t cover forestry.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) was initially open to Manchin’s bill but then came out against it after Republicans discussed it in detail at lunch.

“I’m not supportive of what’s come out,” he said.

Other Republicans such as Sens. John Kennedy (La.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Rick Scott (Fla.) and Mitt Romney (Utah) are still reviewing the bill.  

“The decision’s I’ve got to make is, on balance, is some permitting reform better than no permitting reform,” Kennedy said. “I’m trying to understand whether Sen. Manchin’s proposal really is permitting reform.  

Manchin’s bill also faces opposition from Democrats.  

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is urging his Democratic colleagues to vote against it and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) announced Wednesday that he would not support the bill because of the language approving the completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which spans 100 miles of his home state.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Pelosi dismissed Raskin push to probe Trump over plans to host foreign leaders at private resort: book

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) butted heads in 2019 over whether to investigate then-President Trump for planning to host foreign leaders at his Miami resort, with the House leader rebuffing the Maryland congressman’s push to launch yet another inquiry into Trump.

The revelations are included in “Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump,” an upcoming book from Politico reporter Rachael Bade and Washington Post reporter Karoun Demirjian.

Since Congress won back the House in 2018, Raskin had pushed to take action on the issue of Trump allegedly violating the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution, which prohibits federal office holders from receiving gifts or compensation from foreign leaders.

Pelosi did not want to move on the issue at the time, and vulnerable Democrats in pro-Trump districts also did not want to launch another investigation into the then-president.

According to Politico’s Playbook, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) asked Raskin during a discussion in 2019: “What’s the point? We know the end of this story.”

“Sometimes, we have to do these things,” Raskin responded.

A few weeks later, in October 2019, Raskin again raised these concerns to Pelosi during an impeachment strategy session related to Trump’s threat to withhold aid to Ukraine unless Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky dig up dirt on then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Trump at the time was planning to host the annual Group of Seven (G-7) conference of foreign leaders at Trump Doral, his private resort in Miami, which meant foreign officials would be spending money at Trump’s businesses and the president himself would spend taxpayer dollars there.

Then-acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had openly announced the G-7 conference at Trump Doral.

Pelosi told Raskin at the October meeting to prepare a resolution, calling Mulvaney a “liar and a creep” and Trump a “sick man and a freeloader,” according to Politico.

But when Trump ultimately reversed his decision to host the G-7 conference at Trump Doral, Pelosi eased up.

Still, Raskin refused to give up, repeatedly pushing for the emoluments probe.

Pelosi warned him to back down, threatening to withhold an impeachment manager position he wanted in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial over the Trump-Zelensky conversation.

House Democrats never impeached Trump for any emoluments violations, but they did impeach him for the Ukraine debacle and the rioting at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The Senate acquitted him both times.

Source: TEST FEED1

Republicans block bill requiring dark money groups to reveal donors

Senate Republicans voted Thursday to block the consideration of a bill to promptly require organizations that spend money on elections to promptly disclose the identities of donors who give $10,000 or more during an election cycle.   

The body failed to invoke cloture on the measure, in a 49-49 vote. Every Republican present voted against the measure, while every Democrat voted for it.

Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) were not present for the decision.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) brought the bill to the floor to highlight the reliance of Senate Republican candidates on huge cash inflows from GOP dark-money groups, such as the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC linked to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), according to Democratic senators familiar with Schumer’s thinking.   

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), has been a top Democratic priority since the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United in 2010 that enabled corporations and other outside special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on federal elections.   

Schumer on Thursday morning said the court’s decision more than a decade ago “has disfigured our democracy almost beyond recognition.”  

The Democratic leader cast Thursday’s vote as a defining issue ahead of the election, when voters are bombarded by televised political ads funded by tens of millions of dollars in anonymous donations.   

“Republicans today must face the music. Either vote to bring transparency and fairness back to our elections as the vast majority of Americans want, or block this measure and cast their lot with the forces of dark money,” Schumer said before the vote.   

McConnell, a longtime opponent of campaign finance restrictions, dismissed the bill as a “liberal pet priority” that he said would give “unelected federal bureaucrats vastly more power over private citizens’ First Amendment rights and political activism.”   

He called it an “insult to the First Amendment” and slammed Democrats for bringing it to the floor instead of legislation to curb inflation or to address other economic problems.   

Schumer, however, noted on Tuesday that McConnell has supported requiring donor disclosure in the past.   

“Even Leader McConnell used to support disclosure … then he did a 180-degree about-face,” Schumer said, quoting McConnell’s statement from 1997 that he thought disclosure was “the best disinfectant.”   

Republicans blocked the Disclose Act earlier this session when Democrats brought it to the floor as part of a broader election reform bill.   

The bill would also require groups that spend money on ads in support or opposition to judicial nominees to disclose their donors, a top priority of Whitehouse, who has spoken on the Senate floor regularly to highlight the influence of conservative group spending on the Supreme Court.   

Whitehouse noted in a press release issued ahead of the vote that political spending by groups that don’t disclose their donors increased from $5 million in 2006 to more than $1 billion in 2020. In addition, political spending by billionaires has increased from $17 million in the 2008 election to $1.2 billion in 2020.

President Biden urged Congress to pass the bill earlier this week, decrying the mounting influence of dark money in politics.   

“There’s much — too much money that flows in the shadows to influence our elections. It’s called dark money. It’s hidden. Right now, advocacy groups can run ads on issues attacking or supporting a candidate right until Election Day without exposing how’s paying for that ad,” he said.   

Democrats in the lead up to the vote pointed repeatedly to a $1.6 billion contribution to a political nonprofit group controlled by Leonard Leo, the co-chairman of the conservative Federalist Society, which is credited with helping to reshape the federal judiciary in recent years.   

Barre Seid, a businessman and conservative donor who made his fortune as the head of an electric device manufacturing company, gave the massive donation, which will fuel efforts to push courts in a conservative direction for years to come.   

Source: TEST FEED1

House Democrats delay policing bills vote after 'Squad' members revolt

House Democrats were forced to delay the debate over four policing and public safety bills that were set to come to the floor on Thursday because of opposition from a coalition of progressive Democrats.

Members of the far-left “Squad” voiced opposition to the lack of “accountability measures” in one of the four bills up for consideration, threatening to tank the entire package.

The House on Thursday was scheduled to consider four measures bolstering law enforcement after moderate and progressive Democrats, following months of negotiations, struck a deal the day before. Key negotiators said the House would consider all four bills under a single rule, then vote on each one separately.

But shortly before the rule vote on Thursday, a spokesperson for Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) said the congresswoman was opposed to one of the bills — sponsored by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) — and called for the other three measures to be considered separately.

The chamber must approve the rule before debating and holding final votes on each piece of legislation. Republicans traditionally vote against rules even if they support the legislation.

The Gottheimer bill would allocate federal grants to local law enforcement agencies that have fewer than 125 officers.

“Even the most barebones accountability measures like those included in the House-passed Justice in Policing Act were not incorporated into the Rep. Gottheimer bill, which would add nearly a quarter billion dollars in police funding over the next 5 years without addressing the crisis of police brutality — and this despite the strong and continued urging from civil rights and racial justice advocacy leaders to chart a more humane path,” Bush’s spokesperson wrote in a statement.

“As such, Congresswoman Bush maintains her opposition to that bill and supports decoupling its consideration from the other important public safety measures that the House should take up immediately,” the spokesperson added.

The procedural vote for the policing bills was initially scheduled to begin between 9:50 a.m. and 10 a.m., but the House went into recess at 9:55 a.m.

It is unclear which other progressive Democrats are opposed to the Gottheimer legislation and threatening to tank the slate of bills if the rule goes to the floor for a vote. Democrats currently hold a small 221-212 majority in the House, which means the caucus can only afford to lose four members.

The legislation has divided the Squad. On Wednesday, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a member of the progressive group, endorsed the package along with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Earlier in the week, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) — also a member of the Squad — said he still harbored deep concerns about the strength of the accountability measures, particularly in the Gottheimer bill. He wants to see some effort to tackle no-knock warrants and choke holds while creating a national database of abusive officers.

“Those conversations have to be brought to the table as we talk about policing in this country,” he said, noting that the Gottheimer bill is the only one of the four bills not to have been approved at the committee level. 

“Why are we pushing this bill forward without a committee markup? Without the accountability pieces?” he asked. “And why are we lumping it in with the other three, that are actually true public safety bills?”

It’s unclear if Bowman is among the liberals blocking the rule on Thursday. 

When announcing a deal on Wednesday, key Democratic lawmakers noted that some of their colleagues may vote against the bills.

“Every member of the [Congressional Black Caucus] may not weigh in on it or vote for it — and I’m OK with that,” Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), the chairwoman of the Black Caucus, told reporters. “But we wanted to make sure we could say we’re doing the best we can at this time.”

Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), the sponsor of one of the bills under consideration, sounded a similar note in regards to her progressive colleagues, telling reporters that while some may defect, “a bulk” of the caucus was behind the deal.

Mike Lillis contributed.

Source: TEST FEED1