Good morn­ing! Here’s how Cascadia’s Mem­bers of Con­gress vot­ed on major issues dur­ing the leg­isla­tive week end­ing Fri­day, June 26th, 2020.

In the United States House of Representatives

The House cham­ber (U.S. Con­gress photo)

ESTABLISHING GROUND RULES FOR POLICE: The House on June 25th passed, 236 for and 181 against, a Demo­c­ra­t­ic-spon­sored bill (H.R. 7120) that would set fed­er­al rules and guide­lines for law enforce­ment prac­tices at all lev­els of gov­ern­ment. In addi­tion to impos­ing rules for the tens of thou­sands of fed­er­al police offi­cers, the bill includes require­ments for state and local law enforce­ment and uses the dis­burse­ment or threat­ened with­hold­ing of fed­er­al funds to encour­age com­pli­ance. Con­gress typ­i­cal­ly deliv­ers hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars annu­al­ly to state and local law enforcement.

Among its wide-rang­ing pro­vi­sions, the bill would:

Choke­holds: Pro­hib­it fed­er­al law enforce­ment from using choke­holds or oth­er appli­ca­tions of pres­sure on the carotid arter­ies, throats or wind­pipes of per­sons being restrained. Finan­cial incen­tives would encour­age state and local police to also out­law such tac­tics. The use of choke­holds based on race would be defined as a civ­il rights violation.

Qual­i­fied Immu­ni­ty: Elim­i­nate the “qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty” defense from civ­il fed­er­al and non-fed­er­al lit­i­ga­tion in which a police offi­cer is being sued for dam­ages based on mis­con­duct includ­ing exces­sive use of force. At present, accused offi­cers can obtain immu­ni­ty mere­ly by show­ing their con­duct was not pro­hib­it­ed by “clear­ly estab­lished law” as opposed to a spe­cif­ic statute or regulation.

No Knock War­rants: Pro­hib­it the use of no-knock war­rants in fed­er­al drug cas­es, and use fed­er­al fund­ing as lever­age to per­suade states and local­i­ties to bar the use of such war­rants in non­fed­er­al drug enforcement.

Cre­ation of Mis­con­duct Reg­istry: Estab­lish a Nation­al Police Mis­con­duct Reg­istry for data on offi­cers fired by local police depart­ments for rea­sons includ­ing exces­sive use of force. The data­base could be used to iden­ti­fy police appli­cants with trou­ble­some employ­ment histories.

Bol­ster Pro­hi­bi­tions Against Racial Pro­fil­ing: Pro­hib­it racial, reli­gious and dis­crim­i­na­to­ry pro­fil­ing by fed­er­al and non­fed­er­al law enforce­ment. Indi­vid­u­als could bring civ­il actions for declara­to­ry or injunc­tive relief.

Use of Force Stan­dard: Amend fed­er­al law to jus­ti­fy “use of force” on grounds it was “nec­es­sary” rather than mere­ly “rea­son­able,” and use finan­cial incen­tives to encour­age state and local law enforce­ment to adopt the same standard.

Use of Force Report­ing: Require state and local police to report use-of-force data to a new Jus­tice Depart­ment data­base, break­ing down the infor­ma­tion by race, sex, dis­abil­i­ty, reli­gion and age. Jus­tice could also col­lect data on local offi­cers’ body frisks and traf­fic and pedes­tri­an stops.

Mil­i­tary Equipment/Militarization: Lim­it the trans­fer of mil­i­tary equip­ment from the Depart­ment of Defense to state and local police agencies.

Cam­era Require­ments: Require uni­formed fed­er­al police to wear body cam­eras and marked fed­er­al police cars to mount dash­board cam­eras, and give local depart­ments finan­cial incen­tives to equip offi­cers with body cameras.

Stan­dard of Evi­dence: Low­er the crim­i­nal intent stan­dard of evi­dence in police mis­con­duct pros­e­cu­tions under fed­er­al law from “will­ful­ness” to “reck­less­ness.”

Local Over­sight Com­mis­sions: Fund local com­mis­sions and task forces for devel­op­ing prac­tices based main­ly on com­mu­ni­ty polic­ing rather than use of force.

Inves­ti­gat­ing Depart­ments: Give the fed­er­al Depart­ment of Jus­tice sub­poe­na pow­er for inves­ti­gat­ing dis­crim­i­na­to­ry and bru­tal “pat­terns and prac­tices” by local depart­ments, and fund efforts by state attor­neys gen­er­al to inves­ti­gate trou­bled munic­i­pal departments.

Accred­i­ta­tion: Require all 18,000 local police depart­ments in the Unit­ed States to adopt of law-enforce­ment accred­i­ta­tion standards.

Sex­u­al Mis­con­duct: Make it a crime for a fed­er­al police offi­cer to engage in sex, even if it is con­sen­su­al, with an indi­vid­ual under arrest or in cus­tody, and use finan­cial incen­tives to encour­age states to enact the same prohibition.

Sup­port­er Cedric Rich­mond, D‑Louisiana, said:

“Amer­i­ca is burn­ing and my [Repub­li­can] col­leagues can’t see, or they don’t want to see, because of blind loy­al­ty to a self-absorbed leader that lacks the char­ac­ter or con­cern to care. Amer­i­ca is also weep­ing… for the vic­tims of exces­sive force by those sworn to pro­tect and serve. She is cry­ing for her Amer­i­can lead­er­ship to man up, to meet this moment and to write in the laws of this coun­try once and for all that black lives do matter.”

Oppo­nent Tom McClin­tock, R‑California, called the bill “an ide­o­log­i­cal laun­dry list of oper­a­tional restric­tions and pro­ce­dures upon every police depart­ment in the coun­try” that “ignores the most seri­ous prob­lem we face – the pro­tec­tion of bad cops by col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ments that make it almost impos­si­ble to fire them.” He added, “There are racists of every col­or in every soci­ety, it’s the basest side of human nature. But no nation has strug­gled hard­er to tran­scend that nature and iso­late and ostra­cize its racists than has America.”

A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate.

	Vot­ing Nay (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson
	Vot­ing Aye (4): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader Vot­ing Nay (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden
	Vot­ing Aye (7): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Den­ny Heck Vot­ing Nay (3): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera-Beut­ler, Dan New­house, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 11 aye votes, 6 nay votes

REJECTING SENATE POLICING BILL: Vot­ing 180 for and 236 against, the House on June 25th defeat­ed a bid to replace a Demo­c­ra­t­ic-spon­sored polic­ing reform bill (H.R. 7120, above) with a less exten­sive pro­pos­al by Sen­ate Repub­li­cans (described in more detail and scored below).

House Repub­li­cans said the Sen­ate bill includes far-reach­ing reforms and could reach Don­ald Trump’s desk this year, while Democ­rats called it unwor­thy of the Black Lives Mat­ter move­ment because it lacks enforce­ment, omits cer­tain reforms and favors study over action.

Pete Stauber, R‑Wisconsin, said the pro­pos­al “improves access to pri­or dis­ci­pli­nary records, restores invest­ment in com­mu­ni­ty polic­ing, invests in improved police train­ing with a focus on de-esca­la­tion tech­niques, increas­es fund­ing for body-cam­era usage” and, over­all, pro­vides “real and much need­ed police reform.”

Sheila Jack­son Lee, D‑Texas, asked: “Where is the par­ty of Lin­coln? Where is the moment of courage when the slaves were freed in 1863? This Sen­ate bill does not rise the occa­sion of those who are in the streets.It does not con­tain any mech­a­nism to hold law enforce­ment offi­cers account­able for their mis­con­duct. In this bill, George Floyd would not have lived.”

A yes vote was to embrace the Sen­ate Repub­li­can police bill.

	Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson
	Vot­ing Aye (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden Vot­ing Nay (4): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, and Kurt Schrader
	Vot­ing Aye (3): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera-Beut­ler, Dan New­house, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers Vot­ing Nay (7): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Den­ny Heck

Cas­ca­dia total: 6 aye votes, 11 nay votes

FAILING TO OVERRIDE VETO ON STUDENT LOANS: Vot­ing 238 for and 173 against, the House on June 26th failed to reach a two-thirds major­i­ty need­ed to over­ride Don­ald Trump’s veto of a mea­sure (H.J. Res 76) con­cern­ing an admin­is­tra­tion rule on stu­dent-loan forgiveness.

The effect of the vote was to affirm a rule that crit­ics said would pro­vide for­give­ness to only three per­cent of some 200,000 claimants who allege their school fraud­u­lent­ly mis­rep­re­sent­ed the qual­i­ty of edu­ca­tion they would receive.

Edu­ca­tion Sec­re­tary Bet­sy DeVos tes­ti­fied that the rule would cor­rect the “blan­ket for­give­ness” of an Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion “bor­row­er defense” rule it replaced.

The Trump rule bars class-action law­suits against schools and requires claims to be adju­di­cat­ed one-by-one by manda­to­ry arbi­tra­tion rather than in open court, with bor­row­ers pro­hib­it­ed from appeal­ing the deci­sion. The rule sets a stan­dard of evi­dence requir­ing bor­row­ers to prove the fraud was intentional.

A yes vote was to over­ride the pres­i­den­tial veto.

	Vot­ing Nay (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson
	Vot­ing Aye (4): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader Vot­ing Nay (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden
	Vot­ing Aye (7): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Den­ny Heck Vot­ing Nay (3): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera-Beut­ler, Dan New­house, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 11 aye votes, 6 nay votes

CONFERRING STATEHOOD ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Vot­ing 232 for and 180 against, the House on June 26 passed a bill (H.R. 51) that would make the Dis­trict of Colum­bia the fifty-first state, renamed as Wash­ing­ton, Dou­glass Com­mon­wealth (with Dou­glass Com­mon­wealth being the state’s name).

As a state, the new Wash­ing­ton, D.C., would acquire vot­ing rights in Con­gress, with one rep­re­sen­ta­tive and two sen­a­tors, and would have con­trol over prop­er­ty with­in its present bound­aries with excep­tions includ­ing the Capi­tol com­plex, nation­al mon­u­ments, the Supreme Court, the Nation­al Mall and near­by fed­er­al build­ings, the White House com­plex and assort­ed oth­er lots and edifices.

Cre­at­ed by the Con­sti­tu­tion as the seat of gov­ern­ment not with­in any state, and estab­lished ini­tial­ly on land carved out of Mary­land and Vir­ginia in 1790, the six­ty-eight-square-mile Dis­trict of Colum­bia, with about 700,000 res­i­dents, has lim­it­ed self-gov­ern­ment but is ulti­mate­ly ruled by Congress.

Car­olyn Mal­oney, D‑New York, said the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives “will vote today on whether hun­dreds of thou­sands of Amer­i­can cit­i­zens will final­ly have their voic­es count­ed in Con­gress. We will vote to hon­or the most fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ples of this nation and for which a rev­o­lu­tion was launched — no tax­a­tion with­out rep­re­sen­ta­tion and con­sent of the governed.”

Jody Hice, R‑Georgia., said “what this is real­ly all about is an attempt to get two more Demo­c­ra­t­ic sen­a­tors.” He said Repub­li­cans “have the Con­sti­tu­tion on our side” because “Con­gress does not have the author­i­ty to take this dis­trict and cre­ate a state out of it. At least one con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment would be required for that to happen.”

	Vot­ing Nay (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson
	Vot­ing Aye (4): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader Vot­ing Nay (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden
	Vot­ing Aye (7): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Den­ny Heck Vot­ing Nay (3): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera-Beut­ler, Dan New­house, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 11 aye votes, 6 nay votes

In the United States Senate

The Sen­ate cham­ber (U.S. Con­gress photo)

BLOCKING REPUBLICAN-BACKED POLICING BILL: By a vote of 55 for and 45 against, the Sen­ate on June 24th failed to reach the six­ty votes need­ed to advance a Repub­li­can-draft­ed bill aimed at improv­ing fed­er­al, state and local polic­ing. Democ­rats called the mea­sure much weak­er than their par­ty’s pro­pos­als in the Sen­ate and House (above). Both par­ties would use fed­er­al fund­ing of law enforce­ment as a lever to encour­age state and local compliance.

The Repub­li­can bill would pro­hib­it choke­holds as nar­row­ly defined, in con­trast to broad­er Demo­c­ra­t­ic lan­guage in both cham­bers that would out­law the use of a range of restraints on blood flow and breathing.

The Repub­li­can bill would estab­lish one fed­er­al com­mis­sion to study polic­ing issues espe­cial­ly affect­ing black males, and anoth­er to rec­om­mend crim­i­nal jus­tice reforms. The bill also sought to make lynch­ing a fed­er­al crime; require police offi­cers to wear a body cam­era; estab­lish a fed­er­al data­base of offi­cers fired for mis­con­duct in order to make it dif­fi­cult for them to get rehired else­where; require local depart­ments to sub­mit details on their use of force caus­ing death or seri­ous injury to a fed­er­al data­base, and fund diver­si­ty hir­ing and de-esca­la­tion training.

The Repub­li­can bill omits Demo­c­ra­t­ic pro­vi­sions to bar or scale back the “qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty” defense in civ­il law­suits against police offi­cers, and to give the Depart­ment of Jus­tice and state attor­neys gen­er­al more pow­er to inves­ti­gate local police depart­ments for “pat­tern and prac­tices” abus­es. The Repub­li­can bill does not include a pro­posed ban on racial pro­fil­ing that Democ­rats put in their bill, nor would it scale back the mil­i­ta­riza­tion of local police departments.

While the Repub­li­can bill requires local police depart­ments to sub­mit data on their use of no-knock war­rants, Democ­rats would pro­hib­it no-knock war­rants in fed­er­al drug cas­es. In anoth­er dif­fer­ence, Repub­li­cans would require most infor­ma­tion in a new­ly estab­lished FBI data­base on police mis­con­duct to be shield­ed from pub­lic view, while both Demo­c­ra­t­ic mea­sures would open the data­base to the public.

Mitch McConnell, R‑Kentucky, said:

“Faced with the fact that polic­ing is pri­mar­i­ly a local and state, rather than a fed­er­al, con­cern, [we] nev­er­the­less found a vari­ety of levers that Con­gress can pull to advance and incen­tivize and insist on the changes that we need to see. We need to encour­age police depart­ments across Amer­i­ca to imple­ment prac­ti­cal reforms like end­ing choke­holds, train­ing their offi­cers to de-esca­late tense sit­u­a­tions and hav­ing pri­or dis­ci­pli­nary records play a greater role in hiring.”

Chris Van Hollen, D‑Maryland, said:

“The police are the agents of the state. Hold­ing police account­able and requir­ing jus­tice in polic­ing is just the first step. We must also con­front the oth­er man­i­fes­ta­tions of sys­temic racism and the insti­tu­tions and soci­etal norms that allow them to con­tin­ue. We must dis­man­tle them with the same delib­er­ate actions that ingrain them in the first place. Tin­ker­ing with the sys­tem will not be enough. We need dra­mat­ic reforms in our crim­i­nal jus­tice system.”

A yes vote was to advance the bill to debate and votes on amendments.

	Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Sen­a­tors Jim Risch and Mike Crapo
	Vot­ing Nay (2): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley
	Vot­ing Nay (2): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Maria Cantwell and Pat­ty Murray

Cas­ca­dia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes

CONFIRMING CORY WILSON TO THE BENCH: Vot­ing 52 for and 48 against, the Sen­ate on June 24 con­firmed Cory T. Wil­son, a state judge in Mis­sis­sip­pi, for a seat on the 5th Cir­cuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which has juris­dic­tion over fed­er­al tri­al courts in Louisiana, Mis­sis­sip­pi and Texas. Don­ald Trump has now appoint­ed 53 fed­er­al appeals judges, about one-fourth of the cir­cuit-court total.

While Repub­li­cans praised Wilson’s con­ser­v­a­tive views, Democ­rats crit­i­cized him over his oppo­si­tion to LGBTQ rights and the Patient Pro­tec­tion Act and sup­port of Mis­sis­sip­pi’s vot­er ID law and the car­ry­ing of con­cealed, loaded guns on pub­lic prop­er­ty includ­ing col­lege cam­pus­es in his state.

Cindy Hyde-Smith, R‑Mississipi, said:

“There is no ques­tion that Judge Wil­son will be a fair and impar­tial judge,” adding that his con­fir­ma­tion “rep­re­sents a piv­otal point in the pres­i­den­t’s work to ensure there are more smart, con­ser­v­a­tive jurists in the fed­er­al judiciary.”

Mazie Hirono, D‑Hawaii, said:

“As a state leg­is­la­tor, Wil­son vot­ed for a bill that would allow busi­ness­es and peo­ple to deny ser­vices to LGBTQ indi­vid­u­als. The Human Rights Cam­paign called that bill ‘the worst anti-LGBTQ state law in the U.S.’ ”

A yes vote was to con­firm the nominee.

	Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Sen­a­tors Jim Risch and Mike Crapo
	Vot­ing Nay (2): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley
	Vot­ing Nay (2): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Maria Cantwell and Pat­ty Murray

Cas­ca­dia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes

Key votes ahead

The Sen­ate plans to debate the fis­cal 2021 mil­i­tary bud­get in the week that begins on June 29th, while the House sched­ule was to be announced.

Edi­tor’s Note: The infor­ma­tion in NPI’s week­ly How Cas­ca­di­a’s U.S. law­mak­ers vot­ed fea­ture is pro­vid­ed by Votera­ma in Con­gress, a ser­vice of Thomas Vot­ing Reports. All rights are reserved. Repro­duc­tion of this post is not per­mit­ted, not even with attri­bu­tion. Use the per­ma­nent link to this post to share it… thanks!

© 2020 Thomas Vot­ing Reports.