LOTF: An American Political Roleplay (116th Congress)

[Vaquas]

House Floor

Speaker Pro Tempore Dan Ziegler (D-CO-01): "The floor is now open to questions."

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

Senator Gus Durant
R|AK

---

After careful consideration, Gus decided to vote for the bill. The funds appropriated would be more than made up for by the cessation of foreign aid to Russia and China, and although he took issue with an overtly aggressive foreign policy stance, cancelling foreign aid superseded any fear of ruffling Russian and Chinese feathers.

"Aye, Mr. President," he voted solemnly.

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

Park: "Mr. Speaker, does the Representative from Texas believe that this bill will result in more consumers going to larger chain pharmacies that are able to negotiate bulk discounts?"

[Louisianan]

Park: "Mr. Speaker, does the Representative from Texas believe that this bill will result in more consumers going to larger chain pharmacies that are able to negotiate bulk discounts?"

United States House of Representatives
Representative Linda Lazare
[Democratic - 7th District of the State of Texas]

"This is a great question, first and foremost, since drug prices are not regulated, two pharmacies on different sides of a street can have a prescription drug price difference of over $100. This bill will ensure that consumers are aware of this difference and are able to budget their money accordingly."

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

Park: "Mr. Speaker, does the Representative from Texas believe that this bill will result in more consumers going to larger chain pharmacies that are able to negotiate bulk discounts?"

United States House of Representatives
Representative Linda Lazare
[Democratic - 7th District of the State of Texas]

"This is a great question, first and foremost, since drug prices are not regulated, two pharmacies on different sides of a street can have a prescription drug price difference of over $100. This bill will ensure that consumers are aware of this difference and are able to budget their money accordingly."

"Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the Representative answered my question. Let me rephrase. Do you believe that the lower prices of larger chains will result in them taking business away from smaller shops?"

[Louisianan]

United States House of Representatives
Representative Linda Lazare
[Democratic - 7th District of the State of Texas]

"This is a great question, first and foremost, since drug prices are not regulated, two pharmacies on different sides of a street can have a prescription drug price difference of over $100. This bill will ensure that consumers are aware of this difference and are able to budget their money accordingly."

"Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the Representative answered my question. Let me rephrase. Do you believe that the lower prices of larger chains will result in them taking business away from smaller shops?"

United States House of Representatives
Representative Linda Lazare
[Democratic - 7th District of the State of Texas]

"Whilst I believe I answered the question in all of its capacity, I'll also rephrase it. Studies have found that CVS while being one of the biggest pharmaceutical chains in the USA, has much higher prescription costs than Walmart's pharmacy. Costco, for instance, has cheaper prescription drugs than CVS, Walmart, and Walgreens, even though CVS, Walmart, and Walgreens are much bigger pharmaceutical chains than Costco."

"In a Consumers Report survey, nearly 20 percent of survey respondents told Consumer Reports that when they are faced with a higher cost at the pharmacy, they simply walk away. This bill will give that 20 percent of people a free, and accurate way to find ways to cut those prescription costs."

[New Cobastheia]

Representative Chip Renfus
[Republican - Mississippi’s 4th District]

"Motion to end the questioning period Mr. Speaker."

[Jovuistan]

Representative Chip Renfus
[Republican - Mississippi’s 4th District]

"Motion to end the questioning period Mr. Speaker."

Representative Phillip Crawford
[Democratic - 3rd District of Kentucky]
{Chair of the House Democratic Caucus}

"I second the motion."

[Meelducan]

Senate Floor

Myles, who had returned to the Senate with an arm brace after his running incident, took his seat and banged his gavel.

"With all votes tallied, the bill is sent to the House of Representatives with recommendation it be passed."

[Meelducan]

Senate Floor

“The Senate will now consider The Heartbeat Protection Act of 2019. The clerk will report the bill.”

Official Name: Heartbeat Protection Act of 2019

Sponsor: Luke Hawthorne
Co-sponsor(s): Barry Anderson, Richard Slater

Overview: The Heartbeat Protection Act of 2019 makes it a crime for a physician to knowingly perform an abortion without determining whether the fetus has a detectable heartbeat, and without informing the mother of the results. If the fetus has a detectable heartbeat, the physician may not perform the abortion. A physician who performs an abortion prohibited by this bill would be subject to a fine and/or up to five years in prison, but a woman who undergoes such an abortion could not be prosecuted. Exception to the bill's prohibitions is made for an abortion required to save the life of a mother, if her life is endangered by physical conditions rather than psychological.

Section 1: Any physician who knowingly performs an abortion and thereby kills a human fetus: 1) without determining, according to standard medical practice, whether the fetus has a detectable heartbeat; 2) without informing the mother of the results of that determination; or 3) after determining, according to standard medical practice, that the fetus has a detectable heartbeat, will be subject to criminal penalties.

Section 2: A physician who performs an abortion prohibited under this Act will be fined under Title 18 of United States Code, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Section 3: The prohibitions of this Act do not apply to an abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but not including psychological or emotional conditions.

Section 4: A defendant indicted for an offense under this Act may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother under the conditions exempted by this Act. The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court will delay the beginning of the trial for not more than thirty days to permit such a hearing to take place.

Section 5: A mother upon whom an abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this Act, or for a conspiracy to violate this Act.

Section 6: The physician will include in the medical file of the mother documentation of the determination, according to standard medical practice, of whether the fetus has a detectable heartbeat, the results of that determination, notification of the mother of those results, and any information entered into evidence in any proceedings under Section 4 of this Act.

Section 7: If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application of the provisions of the remainder to any person or circumstance will not be affected thereby.

This bill is thus honorably presented to the United States Senate for consideration in order to prohibit abortion in cases where a fetal heartbeat is detectable, to enhance United States law, and is backed by Senator Luke Hawthorne on January 18, 2019.

Do Not Remove: 1337

“The floor is open to debate.”

[Gordano and Lysandus]

Senator Augusta Merriam
[Republican - State of New Hampshire]

Senator Merriam informs the Senate Parliamentarian of her intention to filibuster the Heartbeat Protection Act.

[Gordano and Lysandus]

Senator Augusta Merriam
[Republican - State of New Hampshire]

"Mr. President, I move to suspend the rules to take up the President's nomination of the Honorable Arthur Bragg to the office of Attorney General of the United States."

[Meelducan]

Senate Floor

“The motion is not in order due to the ongoing filibuster.”

[Gordano and Lysandus]

The Hon. Caroline Simone
[Democratic - 12th District of the State of New York]
{Speaker of the United States House of Representatives}

The Speaker reassumes the chair.

"Hearing no objections, the questioning period on the bill is ended."

[Louisianan]

The Hon. Caroline Simone
[Democratic - 12th District of the State of New York]
{Speaker of the United States House of Representatives}

(Image)

The Speaker reassumes the chair.

"Hearing no objections, the questioning period on the bill is ended."

United States House of Representatives
Representative Linda Lazare
[Democratic - 7th District of the State of Texas]

"I motion that we proceed to vote on the Public Divulgence of Prescription Discounts and Real-Time Recipient Prescription Expense Act."

[Madrinpoor]

Representative Alexander Santiago
[Democratic - 27th District of Florida

"Seconded."

[Gordano and Lysandus]

The Hon. Caroline Simone
[Democratic - 12th District of the State of New York]
{Speaker of the United States House of Representatives}

"Hearing no objections, the House of Representatives will proceed to vote on the legislation."

[Louisianan]

United States House of Representatives
Representative Linda Lazare
[Democratic - 7th District of the State of Texas]

"Aye!"

[Greater Arab State]

House Floor

Prior to the House Minority Leader voting, a note was distributed to those House Republicans present on the House floor at that time.

The whip for the Public Divulgence of Prescription Discounts and Real-Time Recipient Prescription Expense Act is a Nay.

Representative Thomas Volker (R-MO-8): “Nay.”

Shortly after the vote had concluded, and the House saw a lull in its legislative activity, one of the Congressman’s staffers proceeded to place the following bill in the House hopper.

Official Name: The Police Reform Act of 2020

House Sponsors: Representative Thomas Volker (R-MO-8), Representative Theodore Vohoffsky (R-CA-45), Representative George Baxton (R-MI-10), Representative Jason Evander (R-SD-AL), Representative Matthew Walker (R-WA-4), Representative Crawford Clay (R-TX-4), Representative Daniel Park (R-CA-42), Representative Keanu Ionakana (R-CA-50)

Senate Sponsors: Senator Andrew Gardner (R-GA), Senator Kimberley Dunbar (R-KS), Senator Rebecca Trelawney (R-IN), Senator Greg Kost (R-FL)

Overview: The Police Reform Act of 2020 seeks to improve race relations between African Americans and law enforcement officials through conditioning federal funding of state and municipal law enforcement agencies on such agencies banning the use of chokeholds as standard practice, in addition to implementing measures to improve data collection on the use of police force and “no knock” warrants.

Section 1: Following the death of Marlon Ward on May 29th of this year, race relations in the United States, namely those between African Americans and law enforcement, have seen a significant deterioration, with riots taking place across the United States as a direct consequence of these tensions. The Police Reform Act of 2020 seeks to provide a measured solution to this through discouraging the use of chokeholds by state and municipal law enforcement agencies through the withholding of federal funds to law enforcement agencies on a state and municipal level who continue to maintain such practices in addition to improving data collection on the use of police force.

Section 2: For the purposes of this act the term “chokehold” refers to the law enforcement technique of depriving uncooperative and resisting suspects of oxygen for a brief period, with the intention of inducing unconsciousness and therefore, a cessation of resistance from the suspect. Similarly the term “police use of force” refers to physical force used by law enforcement officials for the purposes of restraining a suspect whilst ensuring the safety of the suspect, the law enforcement officials present, as well as the wider public. Furthermore, the term “no knock warrants” refers to warrants granted by a judge which permit law enforcement officials to enter the residence of a suspect without providing immediate prior notification to any residents.

Section 3: Following the enactment of the Police Reform Act, any state or municipal law enforcement agencies who by the first day of the fiscal year following the Police Reform Act’s enactment have not prohibited chokeholds as standard practice except when the use of lethal force has been authorised, will not receive federal funds.

Section 4: State and municipal law enforcement agencies are to report annually to the National Use of Force Data Collection of the Federal Bureau of Investigation information related to the use of force by law enforcement resulting in i: the death of an individual as a direct consequence of police use of force, ii: the serious bodily injury of an individual as a direct consequence of police use of force, iii: the discharging of a firearm either at or in the direction of an individual, vi: any instance in which a civilian discharges a firearm either at or in the direction of a law enforcement official, v: the death or serious bodily injury of a law enforcement official related to the discharge of a firearm by a civilian.

Section 5: State and municipal law enforcement agencies receiving federal funds shall submit annually to the Attorney General, a report including the use of no knock warrants within the past calendar year, as well as the location at which the no knock warrant was issued for, and crime statistics of the surrounding area, particularly the overall crime rate and the crime rate for the offence that the no knock warrant has been issued for. The Attorney General will then publish a public report of this information.

Section 6: Where states or municipalities fail to submit these reports to the Attorney General, the state or municipal government to which the law enforcement agency belongs will be subject to an up-to 20% reduction in federal funding that would otherwise be awarded.

Section 7: No later than 180 days after the enactment of this act, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of the FBI and state and municipal law enforcement agencies, shall issue guidance on best practices relating to established standard and consistent data collection systems required to be reported under sections 4 and 5 and in consistency with data reported for the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 and the Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

Section 8: Creates a new grant program authorized at $112,000,000 for fiscal year 2021 to be made available to States and local governments and administered by the Attorney General to assist these entities in complying with the reporting requirements in sections 4 and 5 of this Act.

Section 9: Provides a sense of Congress that falsifying police reports in connection with civil rights violations obstructs the administration of justice and undermines trust and confidence between communities and law enforcement agencies in those communities. Adds a new criminal penalty for falsifying reports filed in connection with a civil rights violation that results in serious bodily injury or death, prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 242. Provides a 20-year maximum sentence. Provides a 4-level enhancement under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines where a defendant knowingly and willfully falsifies a report in connection with a civil rights violation.

Section 10: Creates a new matching federal grant program to be administered by the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to provide our nation’s law enforcement officers with access to body-worn cameras and the necessary technology, training, and resources to ensure their optimal use. This program is authorized at $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2025. Incentivizes States and local units of government to enact best practices for the use of body-worn cameras by conditioning eligibility for this funding on the department’s work to implement required guidelines that: 1) were developed with input from the community, crime victim organizations, and prosecutors; 2) require body-worn cameras to be used at all times that an officer arrests or detains anyone; 3) ensure officers are properly trained on how to properly use body-worn cameras in the field; and 4) suitably handle recorded content. This provision also ensures that there are clear standards for privacy and data retention and that footage is made publicly available when appropriate to promote community confidence and transparency. These standards will also serve to increase accountability in law enforcement without sacrificing the privacy rights of third parties or the integrity of on-going investigations. Grants issued under section may be used for the purchase of body-worn cameras; the development of best practices and procedures for optimal use of body-worn cameras; necessary and relevant training; requisite technological infrastructure necessary for body- worn cameras; the storage, retention, viewing, auditing, and release of footage from body-worn cameras; and additional personnel to support the administration of the body- worn camera program by the respective unit of government. A covered government receiving grants under this section must submit a comprehensive report to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance each year it receives such funding. These reports must include a summary of the activities carried out through the funding received under this section and whether the needs listed in the entity’s application are being met. The Director may add additional requirements as necessary to these reports and must publish these reports within seven days of receipt. Within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Director must also submit a report to Congress that includes the aggregate amount of grants made under this section, a summary of the information provided by grant recipients over the preceding year, and a description of the priorities and plan for awarding grants and ensuring the effective use of body-worn cameras.

Section 11: Ensures that entities receiving federal dollars to purchase body-worn cameras will implement the necessary guardrails for the use of such cameras and discipline law enforcement officers who intentionally fail to ensure the device is engaged, functional, and properly secured at all times, by subjecting the entity to a twenty-percent reduction in federal funding each year that action is not taken to satisfy the aforementioned requirements. An additional five-percent reduction is added, for a maximum of a 25% reduction in funding for any given year, if entities continue to fail to institute such policies beginning the second fiscal year after enactment. Funds subject to the penalty will be reallocated to States and municipalities that are compliant with this section.

Section 12: Requires law enforcement agencies to maintain employment and disciplinary records of law enforcement officers for no less than 30 years through a covered system and carefully review the records of any officer before hiring them. Specifically, when making a hiring decision, law enforcement agencies must search and obtain employment and disciplinary records of the applicant from each law enforcement agency that previously employed the applicant to determine whether the applicant has a disciplinary record, internal investigations record, or record of an award or commendation. Records will include substantiated allegations of misconduct and internal investigation records as well as award or commendation. Disciplinary records include any written document regarding an allegation of misconduct by an officer that is substantiated and adjudicated by a government agency or court, unless overturned by an appeal, and results in adverse action by the employing law enforcement agency or criminal charges. State and municipal governments that do not establish and implement these systems will be ineligible for key sources of federal funding. Each State shall receive a one-time grant of at least $1,000,000 to establish these systems and practices. A total of $100,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for this purpose. Protects law enforcement agencies from legal liability for carrying out the requirements of this section. Includes exceptions that allow for legal action where a department unlawfully releases a record to a non-law enforcement entity or individual, or for a purpose other than making a hiring decision.

Section 13: The DOJ Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office shall develop curricula
in alternatives to use of force, de-escalation, and responding to behavioral health crises. The COPS Office shall consult with State and municipal law enforcement agencies, labor organizations, professional law enforcement organizations, and mental health organizations to develop curricula. The COPS Office shall establish a process to certify public and private entities to deliver training using either the curricula developed by the COPS Office, or equivalent curricula. In phase 1, the COPS Office offers regional training programs to equip and certify State and municipal law enforcement officers to conduct training using the COPS Office curricula— a ‘train the trainer’ approach. Phase 1 continues through the end of fiscal year 2023, but the Attorney General may continue regional training programs at his or her discretion. In phase 2, certified public and private entities deliver the curriculum.

Section 14: The Attorney General shall establish a public list of agencies that train their officers in alternatives to use of force, de-escalation, and responding to behavioral health crises. The list shall include the number of officers (out of total workforce) that have completed the training, and whether any personnel from the agency have been certified to conduct trainings themselves.

This bill is then honorably presented to the United States House of Representatives for consideration in order to provide measured police reform and therefore ameliorate race relations within the United States to improve the United States Law and is backed by Representative Thomas Volker on 12th June, 2020
Do Not Remove: 1337

[Emazia]

Vohoffsky was not in the chamber, instead attending to constituent business. He staunchly opposed the bill but knew it would hurt him to vote against it.

[New Cobastheia]

Representative Kathleen Nez
[Democratic - Arizona's 7th District]
[Assistant Speaker of the House of Representatives]

"Aye."

---

Representative Chip Renfus
[Republican - Mississippi’s 4th District]

"Aye."

[Greater Arab State]

House Floor

After seeing his previous note off, the House Minority Leader sent a note to a number of House Republicans in vulnerable or Baharia-Wolf districts, notably amongst them was Congressman Baxton.

The previous note on the whip for the Public Divulgence of Prescription Discounts and Real-Time Recipient Prescription Expense Act does not apply to you, use your own discretion on this bill.

[Emazia]

Congressman Baxton smiled.

Rep. George Baxton [R-MI-10]: "Aye."

[Lavan Tiri]

Representative Jason Evander
R|SD-At-Large

Jason frowned at Volker's note, sighed quietly, and voted "nay".

[Louisianan]

Representative Jason Evander
R|SD-At-Large

Jason frowned at Volker's note, sighed quietly, and voted "nay".

Linda sighed before writing a note,

Mr. Evander, I understand your vote was probably whipped here, but please, think for yourself, don't let others influence your integrity or cloud your judgment. You co-sponsored the bill, Mr. Evander, because you know this isn't a progressive bill, and it isn't an extreme jump from your political views. You're a pioneer, and a rebel, please, fight the establishment here on behalf of the people.