Lawmakers Optimistic in Police Reform Talks

Plus: Cabinet officials will testify on Biden’s budget requests this week.

By
12

Good morning. I’m on the road coming back from a wedding today, so this edition of Uphill is a little more abbreviated than normal. (Think of it as balancing out the behemoth 3,300-word edition we sent you on Friday.)

Police Reform Update

Negotiators say they’re making progress on a potential police reform compromise—but success is far from certain, and progressives in the House are signaling they’ll oppose anything that waters down some of the main Democratic priorities in the bill. 

This week will be critical for the development of the legislation. South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott is continuing to meet with Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, and Rep. Karen Bass, a California Democrat, to hammer out the details.

Scott sounded optimistic about the talks on Monday night, telling reporters the trio made progress over the weekend. “I think we can see the end of the tunnel,” he said. 

And Booker said he plans to pull long days all week “in hopes that by the time we come out of the weekend we have more of this framework.”

Lawmakers are broadly in agreement on several items, like limiting the use of chokeholds and encouraging police departments around the country to embrace body cameras. There are still important disagreements for the two parties to work through, though.

One of the biggest hurdles is qualified immunity—the legal doctrine that largely shields police officers from civil liability. Democrats would like to eliminate qualified immunity altogether to enhance accountability for officers. Republicans argue the protections are important for police to be able to do their jobs. Scott has proposed making it easier to sue police departments and local governments in cases of law enforcement abuse instead of individual officers.

Earlier this month, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn notably left the door open to a deal that does not include an end to qualified immunity.

“I want to see good legislation, and I know that sometimes you have to compromise,” Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, said on CNN. “If you don’t get qualified immunity now, then we’ll come back and try to get it later, but I don’t want to see us throw out a good bill because we can’t get a perfect bill.”

A group of 10 House progressives split with Clyburn on that point, sending a letter to congressional leaders on Friday indicating they’re not willing to accept a bill that doesn’t scrap qualified immunity.

“Given that police violence, as a weapon of structural racism, continues to have devastating and deadly consequences for Black and brown lives across our country, we strongly urge you to not only maintain but strengthen the provision eliminating qualified immunity as negotiations in the Senate continue,” the lawmakers wrote. You can read the letter in full here.

“As negotiations continue, know this: there can be no true justice in America if we cannot save lives, just like there can be no true accountability in America if we do not eliminate qualified immunity,” they added.

With a remarkably slim margin in the chamber, Democrats can only afford to lose a few of their members in order to pass legislation in the House without Republican support. If all 10 of the Democrats who wrote the letter oppose the potential deal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would have to rely on some level of GOP buy-in to send the measure to Biden’s desk.

A vote on any kind of compromise wouldn’t be immediate: The House isn’t scheduled to return from recess until the third week of June.

Booker, Scott, and Bass said in a joint statement Monday that the first anniversary of George Floyd’s murder today “serves as a painful reminder of why we must make meaningful change.”

“While we are still working through our differences on key issues, we continue to make progress toward a compromise and remain optimistic about the prospects of achieving that goal,” they wrote. 

President Joe Biden had previously urged Congress to reach a deal by the one-year mark of Floyd’s death. 

“We obviously are not going to make the May 25 deadline, but I don’t have any reason to think it’s going to be two months later,” Bass told CBS News. “Right now, I don’t have any reason to think it won’t be more than a couple of weeks.” 

You can read more about the differences between Democrats’ George Floyd Justice in Policing Act and Republicans’ JUSTICE Act here.

On the Floor

The House is out this week. The Senate is expected to vote on Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services today. The chamber is also set to consider Kristen Clarke to be an assistant attorney general. Senators will continue to vote on amendments to a massive research and development investments bill intended to boost American competition with China. 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday that the chamber will vote “very soon” on the House’s legislation to establish an independent commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the Capitol. That vote could come as soon as this week, but it could also land on a later date. “I will have more to say on that in the coming days,” Schumer said of the schedule.

Key Hearings

  • The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on military space operations and policy Wednesday afternoon with Gen. David Thompson—vice chief of space operations for the U.S. Space Force—and other officials. Information and livestream here. 

  • CDC Director Rochelle Walensky will testify before a House Appropriations subcommittee Wednesday at 10 a.m. on the CDC’s fiscal year 2022 budget request. Information and livestream here. 

  • Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas will testify before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee Wednesday at 2 p.m. on the administration’s DHS budget request. Information and livestream here. 

  • Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley will appear before a House Appropriations subcommittee on Thursday at 1 p.m. to discuss the administration’s fiscal year 2022 Defense Department budget request. Information and livestream here. 

  • Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen will testify before a House Appropriations subcommittee on Thursday morning. Information and livestream here. 

Of Note

Biden to meet with George Floyd’s family amid uncertain progress on race

Bipartisan talks over infrastructure deal on the brink of crumbling days before deadline

Democrats’ backroom clashes over military justice erupt onto Senate floor

Mitt Romney’s family plan and the death of D.C. dealmaking

Grounded in local issues, Delgado punches above his weight

Bernie Sanders wants to stop NASA funding for Blue Origin

12
By
Comments (12)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    It's kinda telling how the negatively themed Uphill last week got almost 200 comments while this more positive one only got 10 so far. Although I suppose that may be because the news is just "they are still working on a police reform bill deal" with no actual deal with specifics. I can also imagine some Members thinking "not holding my breath, at one point there was a deal on a 1/6 Commission too".

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      JohnM.

      Apples & oranges. Last week's newsletter was a real tour de force by Haley--which garnered much critical praise--while this one was a more abbreviated one as we were informed.

      Collapse
  2. Nicco

    Clyburn needs 10 Republican Senators more than 10 Progressive Representatives. If the bill can get 10 R Sens, it can get more than 10 R Reps to make up the difference.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Chris L

    Maybe I'm being naively optimistic, but does anyone else think it's reasonable that any compromise bill crafted would garner significant centrist ("centrist?" what's that??) bipartisan support and only alienate both parties' fringes? The amount of common ground here is difficult to ignore.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    love the link to the romney plan

    Ive been wondering where that went to

    Suddenly welfare reform isn't needed?

    Doesn't it seem that democrats do not want to give the center right ANY traction anywhere?

    Way to be a centrist and uniter mr. Biden

    Collapse
  5. Learnin4life

    Since the Dems are truly a big tent party, their ambitions frequently extend beyond the reach of certain party members. In the popular vernacular, Dem factions occasionally employ the process of propose legislation, find foot, squeeze trigger, shoot foot, fail to pass any legislation. I really hope that the police reform proposals now circulating don't wind up in the trash bin of shoulda, woulda, coulda legislation because 100% of the conceptual ideas don't come to fruition on a bipartisan basis. There really does appear to be a path forward that is supported by both parties. All participants need to take a win to demonstrate cooperation is possible within our currently fractured system.

    Collapse
  6. Gene Wisdom

    What struck me is the quote from a letter by Democratic House members that includes the phrase "Black and brown lives". I've always been struck by the capitalization of color, especially where one is capitalized and the other is not. The striking part is the similiarity between the approach by Democratic Congressmen and the KKK and other racists who in their literature capitalized "White" but always stated "black" in lower case. A perfect example of the overt racism by some on the Left.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Hmmmmm.

    Let’s see what they bring out, but part of me is skeptical off the bat since any party that is not willing to negotiate or pass a Bill because they do not like an administration (Tim Scott’s older Bill) and now when they are in power wish to do this, makes me again remember how dastardly our political leaders can be sometimes.

    Which is doubly shocking that they even passed criminal justice reform under the last admin.

    Strange times.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    As someone who deal with the public writ large to provide emergency services, (in my case medical) I would not do the job for one minute if I could be sued for a presume medical failure. I am positive that in every instance my actions could be picked apart by an expert witness. It is called the practice of medicine not the science of medicine. I recently had a suicide attempt by a 17 year old using Benadryl as the substance of choice. I was not familiar with the different treatment modalities. I only treat symptoms I find. In this care respiratory failure along with seizures and eventual cardiac arrest. Specifically Benadryl overdose requires different amounts of various medicines. I have never been taught nor trained on a Benadryl overdose. Fortunately the patient survived and being young was likely reason. If the family could sue me for omission of treatments with the potential I could lose my savings, my assets I would quit in heartbeat. Police are in a more precarious situation. I doubt you find someone stupid enough to become a PO as no criminal ever thinks they are ever guilty or treated fairly.

    Collapse
    1. Gabej1989

      I don’t agree, I think there’s a way to balance it but your concerns make sense to me!

      How do you feel about requiring departments to be insured? Or… I think that’s the idea I’ve heard. Basically make it financially impossible for a department to keep an officer who has been the source of lawsuits.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Earl King

        Better than losing qualified immunity.

        Collapse
        1. Gabej1989

          Better but still not good? I think that would serve the same purpose without having the same degree of potential issues. I do need to learn more about both though, my understanding is limited.

          Collapse