Thread by @nycsouthpaw

A mini-thread on what happens in Congress.

I got a press release today from Sen. Schumer’s office heralding the inclusion of @ChrisMurphyCT’s “Law Enforcement Identification Act” in the NDAA. A good thing! Generously, the email included links to the relevant language...

On the left is the operative language of Sen. Murphy’s proposal (murphy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…), and on the right is an excerpt from the 4,517 page NDAA conference report. There are material differences.

Murphy’s proposal would have applied to federal personnel conducting any anti-riot activity; it’s been narrowed to federal personnel acting “in support of Federal authorities.” Does that limit the type of deployments covered? What if they’re supporting state authorities?

Murphy’s proposal required last names AND badge numbers or last names ANDranks be displayed.

The conference report changes this to names OR unique identifiers, meaning I guess that the federal personnel could put code names or long serial numbers on their uniforms.

You can’t (afaik) find the member of Congress who introduced these changes, making a good and needed piece of legislation that much worse and federal misconduct that much easier. No one voted on the amendment. It just happened in the conference committee.

I reached out to Schumer and Murphy’s offices to ask about the changed language but they haven’t gotten back to me yet.

There is a change in the other direction too, I think. They took out the limitation that this only applies within the US.

Appears to be a worldwide rule for US forces at civil disturbances now (to the extent that ‘providing support for federal authorities’ language applies).

WaPo columnist peeks behind the closed doors on another, bigger, but still opaque NDAA conference committee battle, showing how Ivanka’s signature initiative foundered and cost the State Dept its funding bill. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/…