Failed NDAA Amend: Prohibit use of funds to transfer military surplus to police departments.

[Lucille]

This was Grayson's amendment (last item on the page). So many police statists waging a War on Us.

My rep didn't vote, again, because she's a coward.

Ferguson's Rep. Lacy Clay Voted Against Amendment to Limit Military Surplus Transfers to Local Cops, Just Two Months Ago
http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/14/fergusons-rep-lacy-clay-voted-against-am

In June, the House of Representatives voted on a series of amendments to H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act. Among the amendments was one by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) which would’ve prohibited funds from being used to transfer certain kinds of military surplus to local police departments. The amendment failed by a wide margin, with only 62 votes for and 355 against.

Among those voting against this bill, which would slow down the militarization of America’s police forces, was Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), whose district includes Ferguson, Missouri, where many Americans have gotten their first glimpse of America’s militarized police in action.

House leadership on both sides also voted against it, including Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

Supporters of the amendment include the usual civil libertarian suspects, such as Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), who called attention to this vote on Twitter earlier today, John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Walter Jones (R-NC), Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), John Lewis (D-Ga.), who nevertheless called for martial law in Ferguson, Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Mark Sanford (R-SC). Fourteen other Republicans and 43 other Democrats voted for the amendment.
[...]
See how your representative voted here.

Here is a transcript of Rep. Grayson's argument in favor of his amendment before the vote killed it:

I'll post a different excerpt:

Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to make aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles),
armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological
agents (including chemical agents, biological agents, and
associated equipment), launch vehicles, guided missiles,
ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or
nuclear weapons (as identified for demilitarization purposes
outlined in Department of Defense Manual 4160.28) available
to local law enforcement agencies through the Department of
Defense Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant
to section 1033 of Public Law 104-201, the `National Defense
Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1997'.

DOD equipment is changing the mentality of police departments throughout our country. Recruiting videos now feature clips of officers storming into homes with smoke grenades and firing automatic weapons into homes, as well as clips of officers creeping through the fields in camouflage--war camouflage. This is not policing; this is war. One South Carolina sheriff's department now takes its new tanklike vehicle with a mounted .50-caliber gun to schools and community events. The department spokesman said his tank is a conversation starter. That is not a conversation I want us to have. I think this is wrong. The Federal Government should not be encouraging our public servants to view America as occupied territory.

 

[JK/SEA]

//

 

[Lucille]

Hopefully more will vote the right way this time.

Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?457948-Stop-Militarizing-Law-Enforcement-Act

 

[loveshiscountry]

He's my favorite democrat

 

[Henry Rogue]

The rep. From my district voted aginst, not surprised.

 

[Lucille]

http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/18/media-notes-congressional-failure-to-dem

Members of Congress had a recent chance to demilitarize policing—and Ferguson, Missouri's own member of Congress, Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), is among the majority of both Democrats and Republicans who turned up their noses at the opportunity. That point was made by Reason's own Ed Krayewski, last week, who noted that "House leadership on both sides also voted against it, including Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)"

Media outfits including the Washington Post and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have now picked up on the irony of Rep. Clay's justifiable opposition to "police repression" just two months after he joined 354 of his colleagues in opposing a measure sponsored by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) intended to "prohibit the Department of Defense from gifting excess equipment, such as aircraft—including drones—armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, and bombs to local police departments," in the words of its author.

The Post-Dispatch's Chuch Raasch notes that "Five of six members of the House from the St. Louis area voted against the amendment." Raasch quotes Clay defending his vote, while still condemning police militarization.

Cognitive dissonance, thy name is...well, pretty much anybody holding government office.
[...]
Realizing there's a problem is a first step. Now that horror is growing over military equipment and tactics deployed in the streets of American cities with the encouragement of the country's political class, maybe a solution will be next.

Maybe?

A very big maybe, IMO.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/19/georgia-county-wont-pay-medical-bills-fo

Politicians like Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) who have supported the militarization of police but have found it politically unfeasible to do so now have been looking for a way to square their support with a little bit of politically-motivated outrage. Clay, whose district includes Ferguson, the town that helped catapult the issue of police militarization into the national news cycle, defended his vote, saying he only disapproved of the use of such police forces for crowd control in his district.

But while their presence at protests may be the most prominent manifestation of militarized police, the problem is endemic.