![](\"https:\/\/static01.nyt.com\/images\/2021\/06\/10\/us\/politics\/10dc-policing-3\/merlin_173619516_1aa597d2-9c62-4e02-b56d-9fc481123b09-articleLarge.jpg\")
<\/p>\nWASHINGTON \u2014 Efforts to strike a bipartisan compromise on a national policing overhaul are teetering on the edge of a collapse in Congress, as yearlong negotiations threaten to break down under the weight of fraught ideological differences and a rapidly closing window for action.<\/p>\n
After a Minneapolis jury in April found the white police officer who killed George Floyd guilty of murder, lawmakers in both parties were cautiously optimistic that the verdict would provide fresh momentum to break the impasse that had bedeviled negotiators since Mr. Floyd\u2019s death. President Biden gave his support, too, calling on Congress to act by the first anniversary of the murder, in late May.<\/p>\n
But that deadline has come and gone, and weeks after the verdict, negotiators are still at odds over the same roster of divisive issues, most notably whether to change criminal and civil penalties to make it easier to punish police officers for misconduct. Now, lawmakers working to break the stalemate and police lobbying groups involved in the talks are squabbling over a new proposal, and there remains no clear path to bridging their divides before a self-imposed deadline at the end of June.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ve got a lot of work to do still,\u201d said Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, Republicans\u2019 lead emissary on the issue who had been taking a more upbeat tone as recently as last week. \u201cThe devil\u2019s in the details, and we\u2019re now meeting the devil.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr. Scott and his Democratic counterparts \u2014 Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and Representative Karen Bass of California \u2014 had hoped to be stitching up the final details of a rare bipartisan agreement right about now. The two sides repeatedly expressed optimism that they could merge competing proposals introduced last summer into a single bill to improve officer training, create a national database to track police misconduct, and make it easier for victims of misconduct to sue officers or their departments in court.<\/p>\n
Instead, on Thursday, Democrats and Republicans found themselves trading veiled barbs over a written proposal circulated this week by Mr. Booker that appears to have only driven the two parties further apart and pitted powerful law enforcement groups against one another.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Democrats told their Republican counterparts that at least one such group, the Fraternal Order of Police, had lent its support to key provisions of the document, according to congressional aides familiar with the talks. The New York Times obtained a copy of the text.<\/p>\n
The proposed measure would lower the threshold for the federal government to prosecute officers who commit egregious misconduct and violate an individual\u2019s constitutional rights. It would also alter the legal doctrine known as qualified immunity to make it easier for victims or their families to sue police departments and municipalities, but not individual officers.<\/p>\n
But rather than yielding a major breakthrough, Mr. Booker\u2019s idea appeared to backfire. Republicans charged him with acting alone in an attempt to sway key policing interests in favor of an overly liberal bill. The more conservative National Sheriffs\u2019 Association blasted its contents and began lobbying hard against it on Capitol Hill, and the Fraternal Order of Police quickly fired back.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere ain\u2019t no way in hell that\u2019s going anywhere,\u201d said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. \u201cThe conversations we had about police reform were completely different than the document that was produced.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr. Graham argued that the proposed changes to the criminal code would allow \u201cthe most liberal federal prosecutors\u201d to ruin the lives of individual police officers who caused minor injuries like cuts and abrasions \u2014 a contention one Democratic aide dismissed as exaggeration. Republicans have been more supportive of making it easier for victims to sue departments and cities, but also took issue with how Mr. Booker had structured that change.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf a union believes this is a good deal for cops, I\u2019d be wanting my dues back if I were a cop,\u201d Mr. Graham said, referring to the Fraternal Order of Police.<\/p>\n
Jonathan Thompson, the executive director of the sheriffs' group, said his members had \u201cgrave concerns\u201d about the draft, \u201cbut remain open to the possibility that something balanced and reasonable is achievable.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jim Pasco, the F.O.P.\u2019s executive director, unequivocally denied that the organization had weakened its standards for protecting officers and said that the group would not back legislation that did.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe would never sell out our members for any reason,\u201d he said in an interview.<\/p>\n
In a knock on the National Sheriffs\u2019 Association, Mr. Pasco added that the group \u201cis often upset, and sometimes it is difficult to ascertain the exact reason for it.\u201d<\/p>\n
The public spasm of discontent underscored the delicate balancing act required to move forward. While the death of Mr. Floyd and the national protest movement it inspired helped drastically shift public opinion on matters of race and policing last summer, Republicans have also leaned heavily into political attacks that portray Democrats as the enemies of law enforcement, and themselves as its protectors.<\/p>\n
Democrats badly want a deal but believe a final product that fails to make it easier to hold officers responsible for wrongdoing would not adequately respond to the racism they argue is coursing through American policing.<\/p>\n
Thursday\u2019s pessimism also broke the upbeat tone that has surrounded the talks for months. With lawmakers willing to divulge only the sparest of details from their talks, media reports have frequently exaggerated the extent of their progress, adding another layer of difficulty to getting a deal. Mr. Scott, Mr. Booker and Ms. Bass may not have helped. In an effort to create a sense of momentum, they have repeatedly told reporters they expect a breakthrough in a few days, or a week, or imminently. Each deadline has passed without a deal.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are days, but that could be 30 days or 25 days \u2014 who knows?\u201d Mr. Booker said on Thursday, when pressed by reporters to account for conflicting assessments of when the group might reach a conclusion \u2014 if it can. \u201cThere\u2019s a lot of work to be done in a very short period of time.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr. Graham and other Republicans close to the talks insisted there was still reason for optimism. Mr. Booker, Mr. Scott and others involved in the discussions are set to meet next week with key law enforcement groups.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere will be several versions of it,\u201d said Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma. \u201cWe\u2019re still going to get it solved. I\u2019m not worried about it.\u201d<\/p>\n
The current deadline, the end of June, would appear to be a firm breaking point, though. If negotiators cannot reach an agreement among themselves by then, they likely would not have enough time to gauge support among their parties more broadly and bring it to the floor for a lengthy debate and vote before Congress leaves town for a six-week summer recess. Once lawmakers are back, both sides agree the specter of midterm campaigning is likely to overwhelm any bipartisan good will on such a politically fraught issue.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is momentum for a deal,\u201d said Holly Harris, the executive director of the Justice Action Network. \u201cIn fact, I would even call it desperation for a deal. But there are significant challenges ahead. I would just urge those who work on this and really want a deal and want to change laws and lives, don\u2019t add to those obstacles.\u201d<\/p>\n
Negotiations on policing reform first fell apart last summer after Senate Republicans refused to take up Democrats\u2019 expansive bill, named after Mr. Floyd, that would have curtailed qualified immunity, made it easier to prosecute misconduct, and placed direct mandates on police departments, including restrictions on deadly use of force. Democrats in turn blocked a Republican-led effort to pass more modest legislation led by Mr. Scott that encouraged departments to change their practices and included penalties for departments that did not restrict the use of chokeholds or require use of body cameras.<\/p>\n