2020: Schweikert Voted Against Limiting The Insurrection Act Amidst President Trump's Threats To Deploy Federal Troops In Response To Black Lives Matter Protests. In July 2020, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the FY 2021 NDAA that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "restrict the president's authority to invoke Insurrection Act authorities to call state militias into federal service to suppress an insurrection within a state. Specifically, it would require the president and Defense Department to certify to Congress that the state is unable or unwilling to take such action and describe the mission and scope of use of force, and it would prohibit the direct participation of the U.S. armed forces in a search, seizure, arrest or similar activity unless expressly authorized by law." The vote was on adoption. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 215-190. [House Vote 141, 7/20/20; Congressional Quarterly, 7/20/20; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.883; Congressional Actions, H.R.6395]
The Amendment Added Limits To The Insurrection Act In The Wake Of President Trump's Threats To Invoke The Measure And Deploy Active-Duty Troops Against Black Lives Matter Protests. According to The Hill, "The Democratic-controlled House voted Monday to add limits to the Insurrection Act after President Trump threatened to invoke it to deploy active-duty troops against recent protests over racial injustice [...] The amendment approved Monday would require a president consult with Congress 'in every possible instance' before invoking the Insurrection Act, as well as require the president and Defense secretary to make a certification to Congress that a state is unwilling or unable to suppress an insurrection in order to invoke the law. The certification would have to include 'demonstrable' evidence that a state is unwilling or unable to act." [The Hill, 7/20/20]
Though Trump Did Not Invoke The Insurrection Act, He Discharged Federal Law Enforcement In D.C. In Response To Black Lives Matter Protestors. According to The Hill, "Last month, trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection act at the height of the protests, saying he would deploy active-duty troops if governors did not 'dominate' demonstrators. The 1807 act creates an exception to the general prohibition on using the U.S. military to enforce domestic laws. It was last used by former President George H.W. Bush at the request of California's governor to quell the 1992 Rodney King riots. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act despite his threat, but Democrats are still pushing changes to the law after federal law enforcement used force to clear protestors from Lafayette Square outside the White House." [The Hill, 7/1/20]
The Amendment Specified That Deployed Troops Would Be Banned From Search And Seizure Activities. According to The Hill, "The amendment would also specify that troops deployed under the Insurrection Act are not allowed to participate in search, seizure, arrest, or 'other similar activity' unless they are 'otherwise expressly authorized by law.'" [The Hill, 7/20/20]
Republicans Opposed The Amendment, Arguing It Would "Dangerously" Delay The President's Ability To Respond To Riots. According to The Hill, "Republicans argued the amendment would dangerously constrain troops and delay a president's ability to respond to a riot." [The Hill, 7/20/20]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Funds To Be Used To Transfer Mine-Resistant Vehicles From The Department Of Defense To Local Law Enforcement Agencies. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that prohibited funds to be used to transfer mine- and ambush-resistant vehicles to local law enforcement agencies from the Defense Department. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have "prohibit[ed] use of funds to transfer mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles from the Defense Department to local law enforcement agencies." The vote was on the amendment and the House rejected it 166 to 262. The underlying bill, H.R. 2685, was a Defense Department Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016. [House Vote 353, 6/11/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/11/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 493; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2685]
The Defense Department's 1033 Program Had Sent Surplus Military Equipment To Local Police Departments For Decades. According to the US News, "Under the Defense Department's 1033 Program, the government has sent surplus military equipment to local law enforcement agencies for more than a decade. But before the killing of Michael Brown, people didn't pay much attention to the equipment flowing into their communities. After local law enforcement agencies in Ferguson, Missouri, met protesters with equipment obtained through the program that made the police look like the military, the 1033 Program has come under greater scrutiny." [US News, 8/21/14]
2014: There Was "Widespread" Criticism Of The Polices' Use Of Military Equipment In Ferguson. According to NPR, "Amid widespread criticism of the deployment of military-grade weapons and vehicles by police officers in Ferguson, Mo., President Obama recently ordered a review of deferral efforts supplying equipment to local law enforcement agencies across the country." [NPR, 9/2/14]
ACLU: "Sending A Heavily Armed Team Of Officers to Perform 'Normal' Police Work Can Dangerously Escalate Situations." According to the ACLU, "The images on the news of police wearing helmets and masks, toting assault rifles, and riding in mine-resistant armored vehicles are not isolated incidents---they represent a nationwide trend of police militarization. Federal programs providing surplus military equipment, along with departments' own purchases, have outfitted officers with firepower that is often far beyond what is necessary for their jobs as protectors of their communities. Sending a heavily armed team of officers to perform 'normal' police work can dangerously escalate situations that need never have involved violence. Yet the ACLU's recent report on police militarization, 'War Comes Home,' found that SWAT teams, which were originally devised as special responders for emergency situations, are deployed for drug searches more than they are for all other purposes." [ACLU, Accessed 10/29/15]
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): Communities Do Not Need These Vehicles To Be Safe, Since The Vehicles Were Designed For Battle In Iraq. In a floor speech Rep. Johnson said, "This amendment simply shuts off the pipeline of military equipment from the battlefield to our main streets. This amendment forces us to consider whether MRAPs, designed and purchased for battle in the Iraqi desert, are suitable for our local police. It forces us to consider whether an ordinary American citizen would truly feel comfortable in approaching an officer for help if the officer were behind the wheel of a 15-ton armored vehicle that had just been returned from combat in Afghanistan. This amendment would end the transfer of these armored vehicles to school systems and to universities across the country. Are our children so unruly that order can only be maintained with the use of an MRAP? Unless this amendment passes, a vote for the underlying bill will ultimately fund the purchase of MRAPs, which will, one day, be transferred back home for use against our constituents. The consequences are too dangerous to continue this indiscriminate flow of weaponry to the streets of this Nation. I urge support for this amendment." [Congressional Record, 6/11/15]
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ): The Excess Military Equipment That Went To Police Departments Was "Invaluable," So Should Not Be Taken Away. In a floor speech Rep. Frelinghuysen said, "Rather than repeat myself, I think the Department of Defense excess property program does provide some very valuable equipment to local law enforcement. Of course, it is invaluable if it is used properly and with care. As a consequence, I oppose the gentleman's amendment." [Congressional Record, 6/11/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The Use Of Funds To Transfer Flash-Bang Grenades From The DoD To Local Law Enforcement Agencies. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would prohibit use of funds to transfer flash-bang grenades from the Defense Department to local law enforcement agencies. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have "prohibit[ed] use of funds to transfer flash-bang grenades from the Defense Department to local law enforcement agencies." The underlying measure was H.R. 2685, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016. The vote was on the amendment. The House of Representatives rejected the amendment by a vote of 165 to 265. [House Vote 351, 6/11/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/11/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 490; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2685]
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): "The Department Of Defense's 1033 Program Has Helped To Sometimes Distort The Relationship Between The Police And The Communities They Serve" And "Helps To Deepen The Divide In Our Communities." In a speech on the floor, Rep. Johnson said, "My amendment is simple. It would prohibit the transfer of flash-bang grenades from the Department of Defense to local law enforcement. The Department of Defense's 1033 program has helped to sometimes distort the relationship between the police and the communities they serve by allocating over $5 billion in surplus military equipment to local police, including flash-bang grenades. Nothing in current law prevents the military from giving police, including school and university police departments, flash-bang grenades. Allowing this loophole to exist puts our communities at risk of increasing militarization. Mr. Chairman, while we have real tensions across the country, our police and their communities are not at war. Funneling free military equipment to the police, however, helps to further deepen the divide in our communities. The same Washington Post article I mentioned earlier cited over a dozen incidents in recent years where police injured themselves or others while using flash-bang grenades." [Congressional Record, 6/11/15]
ACLU: "Sending A Heavily Armed Team Of Officers to Perform 'Normal' Police Work Can Dangerously Escalate Situations." According to the ACLU, "The images on the news of police wearing helmets and masks, toting assault rifles, and riding in mine-resistant armored vehicles are not isolated incidents---they represent a nationwide trend of police militarization. Federal programs providing surplus military equipment, along with departments' own purchases, have outfitted officers with firepower that is often far beyond what is necessary for their jobs as protectors of their communities. Sending a heavily armed team of officers to perform 'normal' police work can dangerously escalate situations that need never have involved violence. Yet the ACLU's recent report on police militarization, 'War Comes Home,' found that SWAT teams, which were originally devised as special responders for emergency situations, are deployed for drug searches more than they are for all other purposes." [ACLU, Accessed 10/29/15]
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ): The Transfers Of Weapons And Equipment Has Done More Good Than Harm. In a speech on the floor, Rep. Frelinghuysen said, "The Department of Defense excess property program does provide valuable surplus equipment to State and local law enforcement agencies for its use in counternarcotics and counterterrorism operations and to enhance officer safety. It has, on occasion, provided aircraft, including helicopters and small planes, four-wheel-drive vehicles, pickup trucks, ambulances, and mobile command vehicles. It has provided vests and helmets to protect officers, all sorts of important protection equipment, including binoculars, radios, clothing, and information technology. In a time of declining budgets, at the Federal level but also at the State and local level, this program is a good example of a Federal-local partnership that ensures that we get the most out of each tax dollar spent. This amendment would restrict the Department's ability to put equipment they no longer need to use protecting our citizens within our local communities. We think it is a good program. It obviously ought to be monitored, and things ought to be only put in proper hands. On occasion, horrible incidents do occur, but all in all, this program has been a valuable thing to many communities across America." [Congressional Record, 6/11/15]