Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, to the chairman and to the Republican team, let me offer, on behalf of the Democrats and Mr. Conyers, our deepest sympathy for the loss of Burak, and to also acknowledge how important our staff is and how important we are as a family on the Judiciary Committee; staff, Republican and Democratic staff members, working together around legislation that makes a difference in the lives of Americans. To hear the dedication of Burak only warms our hearts to recognize that we still live in the greatest country in the world because we have young people willing to serve and sacrifice on behalf of their Nation. I offer my deepest sympathy to you and to his family as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the underlying bill, and that is H.R. 1039. Again, as we finish Police Week, let me say to all of those in law enforcement, including our Federal law enforcement, local, county, and State, a very large ``thank you'' for the work that you have done.

In my work as a former judge in the city of Houston, I have seen their work up close and personal, and as well, I have had the opportunity, on a number of cases, where I have asked and interacted with them as they have proceeded with their investigation to find the culprit, the perpetrator, and to make the community safe.

Federal probation officers perform a critical service in interacting with and managing their supervisees. They have a central role in seeking to achieve the important goals of supervision, which includes rehabilitating the defendant, safeguarding society from further criminal conduct by the defendant, and protecting the rights of victims.

Although probation officers do have the ability to arrest a supervisee under certain circumscribed conditions, they should not take on the role of police officers. Rather, they should focus on their role of working in a constructive manner with supervisees to maximize the chances of adherence to the conditions of supervision.

We certainly do not want probation officers to be threatened or assaulted while performing their duties, nor do we want anyone to obstruct the performance of those duties. In many instances, those probation officers can be assisted by backup officers or other Federal officers in the line of their duty. That is why Congress enacted section 111 of title 18 of the United States Code which prohibits such behavior. If violated, these crimes should be investigated, charges brought when appropriate, but also the probation officer can seek assistance.

In fact, probation officers have long relied on law enforcement officers to provide support during searches, and I believe that is still the best course. Section 111, however, itself presents serious issues about the vagueness of some of its terms that define violation, such as ``interferes'' or ``opposes.''

May I remind my colleagues that we have a First Amendment. We have the right of freedom of speech and freedom of access, freedom of movement. This exacerbates my concerns about allowing probation officers to arrest individuals whom they are not supervising for violations of this section.

Indeed, we are told by proponents of the bill that Federal probation officers plan to use lesser-included authority to detain violators instead of bringing them in for charges after an arrest. At a time when we need to do more to de-escalate circumstances involving confrontations between law enforcement and citizens, I am concerned that establishing this authority would only lead to more confrontation.

In concluding, as I indicated, the bill would authorize Federal probation officers to arrest, without a warrant, an individual other than their supervisee if there is probable cause to believe that person assaulted or interfered with a probation officer in the course of their duties.

I believe there are conflicting constitutional issues here, and I ask my colleagues, with all due respect, to oppose the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection Act.''

I must oppose this bill for several important reasons.

To begin with, this bill raises serious constitutional and practical concerns that could have been identified and explored had our Committee held any hearings on the subject matter.

This bill would authorize federal probation officers to arrest without a warrant an individual--other than supervisees--if there is probable cause to believe that person assaulted or interfered with a probation officer in the course of their duties.

The changes this bill would make to current law would significantly alter the role of federal probation officers and invite abuse in the application of the proposed expanded authority.

Federal probation officers perform a critical service in interacting with and managing their supervisees. They have a central role in seeking to achieve the important goals of supervision, which includes:

(1) rehabilitating the defendant;

(2) safeguarding society from further criminal conduct by the defendant; and

(3) protecting the rights of victims.

Although probation officers do have the ability to arrest a supervisee under certain circumscribed conditions, they should not take on the role of police officers. Rather, they should focus on their role of working in a constructive manner with supervisees to maximize the chances of adherence to the conditions of supervision.

We certainly do not want probation officers to be threatened or assaulted while performing their duties, nor do we want anyone to obstruct the performance of those duties.

That is why Congress enacted Section 111 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which prohibits such behavior. If violated, these crimes should be investigated and charges brought when appropriate.

In fact, probation officers have long relied on law enforcement officers to provide support during searches, and I believe that is still the best course to continue.

Section 111, however, itself presents serious issues about the vagueness of some of its terms that define violations, such as ``interferes'' or ``opposes''.

This exacerbates my concerns about allowing probation officers to arrest individuals whom they are not supervising for violations of this section.

Making such determinations on vague terms invites abuse.

Indeed, we are told by proponents of the bill that federal probation officers plan to use ``lesser included'' authority to ``detain'' violators instead of bringing them in for charges after an arrest.

This is an invitation for abuse as it indicates the statute may be used--at times--when not necessary.

And, at a time when we need to do more to de-escalate circumstances involving confrontations between law enforcement and citizens, I am concerned that establishing this authority will only lead to more confrontation.

This is all the more troubling because of constitutional concerns regarding such detentions. As the Federal Public Defenders of New York explains: ``the Fourth Amendment does not permit probation officers to exercise this `lesser included' power. Under an exception to the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement, police officers, when executing a search warrant, are permitted to temporarily restrain third parties absent probable cause for arrest, including by using handcuffs. In holding such detentions to be `reasonable,' the Supreme Court emphasized the fact--`of prime importance'--that the search was authorized by a neutral magistrate's finding of probable cause to search the premises.''

In the circumstances contemplated by this bill, the probation officers would have the right to be on the premises, but their underlying authority to detain individuals--not based on a probable cause warrant--would fail this constitutional requirement.

Overall, the extension of third-party arrest authority to federal probation officers is a step in the wrong direction. As the Federal Defenders warn, the ``bill represents a retreat from the current constructive role of probation officers in reintegrating offenders into society. If probation officers assumed the role of police, directing and restraining, or arresting, family and friends, progress in individual cases and the system as a whole would be undermined.''

Likewise, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Leadership Counsel for Civil and Human Rights have expressed strong opposition to this bill.

I appreciate the dedication of federal probation officers in carrying out their important duties. And it is because of my respect for the role that they play that I fear that this bill will ultimately serve to undermine it.

Accordingly, I ask that my colleagues join me in opposing this well- intentioned, but harmful bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman and indicate that there is no doubt we want our officers to be safe.

I do want to bring to the attention of my colleagues that we don't want probation officers to be threatened or assaulted while performing their work or their duties, nor do we want to obstruct the performance of those duties.

Let me remind my colleagues that many times probation officers are going into homes. There are moms and grandmoms or granddads or children, and certainly we realize that emotions of concern may occur.

We want our probation officers to be safe. That is why Congress enacted section 111 of title 18 of the United States Code which prohibits such behavior. And if violated, these crimes should be investigated, and charges are brought.

But the other point is that our probation officers undergo an initial 6 weeks of training and some additional training during the year. They still do not have the degree of training of law enforcement officers. I want them to be protected. That is why I think it is important that they have the assistance of trained law enforcement officers.

Not all probation officers carry a firearm, as it varies in each judicial district. We want them protected, and we would rather follow the law, which is section 111.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has a longstanding record of advocacy and support for the Nation's law enforcement and first responders, and he is a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the other side has any additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

First of all, let me indicate the important work that all law enforcement do and, as well, those who serve in the probation departments of our State and Federal Government. In particular, we are talking about Federal probation officers. I think it is important to give them a debt of gratitude.

But they are not police officers. They are probation officers. Their training is quite different. Their role is quite different. They are to engage in a constructive relationship with the probationer, rehabilitation, making sure they adhere to their rules and confinement or what is detailed by the court. They do it very well; so much so, that we have determined that the incidents are very low.

Of the 987 searches that were conducted by Federal probation officers, only 30 involved uncooperative third parties, or 3 percent. We would like it to be zero. Of the 1,060 searches conducted in 2016, only 39 involved uncooperative third parties, which amounts to about 3.7 percent.

But I agree, no probation officer should be subjected to encountering any manner that threatens them. But this legislation is vague; it is constitutionally weak. It is weak as relates to the Constitution. Its premises, as unopposed and interfered, invite abuse.

I still maintain that many of these probation officers go to the homes of either the probationer or their family, and likely, in many instances, it is close individuals.

I believe probationers can be assisted by law enforcement officers. Remember, the training is distinctly different. What it lends itself to is overbroad interpretations of interference with probation officers, whose duties may lead to overzealous exercise of arrest authority, which does violate the Constitution.

We are now looking at ways to work with law enforcement, and the solution would not be even more training, because we do not want to turn probation officers into police officers, which would undermine the constructive role probation officers have in the rehabilitation of supervisees. Detaining, arresting, and issuing orders to family, friends, employers, and coworkers of supervisees will not advance the goals of supervision but would escalate conflict and lead to greater danger.

These are high goals that my colleagues have spoken of, and I certainly believe that these are worthy goals, but I would offer to say that third parties are not in the same position as those who are supervised with respect to their rights. They have given up none of their rights and should not be detained or arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is and can be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, of unreasonable search and seizure. It is too vague a description to allow an onsite determination as to whether someone should be arrested.

So, in the name of the respect and dignity of all and the appreciation of probation officers, if they view the situation as inappropriate or threatening, as the law allows, those cases should be investigated and prosecuted, but they can call law enforcement officers. Federal probation officers should never be threatened, intimidated, assaulted, or precluded from doing their jobs. Nevertheless, H.R. 1039, rather than improving their ability to execute their responsibilities, would, unfortunately, have the opposite result.

In addition to presenting the constitutional concerns, the bill fails to provide an acceptable, practical, or necessary preventative measure. Further, as the public defenders of New York have indicated, the Fourth Amendment does not permit probation officers to exercise this lesser included power. Under an exception to the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement, police officers, when executing a search warrant, are permitted to temporarily restrain third parties, absent probable cause for arrest, including by using handcuffs.

Holding such detentions to be reasonable, the Supreme Court emphasized the fact of prime importance: that the search was authorized by a neutral magistrate's finding of probable cause to search the premises. That is not what the probation officer comes into that place with. They are not a law enforcement officer.

In caution to our efforts to recognize and respect these fine men and women, let us find a different way, and let us adhere to the established law that will protect the probation officer and all those whom he or she may come in contact with.

Again, with great respect for law enforcement and those who serve, I would ask my colleagues to recognize the broadness and vagueness of this legislation and oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment preserves the trust and integrity between probation officers and supervisees while ensuring public safety.

While I understand the intended goal in the underlying bill, there are some unique concerns that it raises, and my amendment addresses and will, I believe, provide additional information.

My amendment calls for a comprehensive study by the GAO of the newly granted authority to determine the impact on probationers, supervisees, third parties, and the overall probation practice, if that authority is so granted by the vote of this body. This study shall sunset at 30 months after the effective date of this act.

These are concerns that we should all have if we want to ensure that this bill works and reaches its intended purpose, if it is voted on by my colleagues and passes.

In allowing the study, we will ascertain information that we otherwise would not have but would have learned had we proceeded with a hearing on this bill.

This amendment will focus on the bill's impact in application. The study will first review instances of abuse of power in the exercise of such arrest authority.

Second, it will document any complaints made and/or filed regarding the exercise of the probationer's arrest authority of third parties.

Third, it will study any harm resulting from the exercise of such arrest authority, including any civil action alleging the violation of a civil right in the exercise of this expanded authority.

I am confident that my colleagues would agree that public safety is paramount, the safety of the probation officer is paramount, the safety of those who are in the immediate custody of the probationer, and, of course, those other individuals.

We want this to be a sound policy, so implementing sound policies will foster trust and, thereby, public safety.

I want to thank the Rules Committee for making my amendment in order, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Jackson Lee amendment.

While I understand the intended goal in the underline bill, there are some unique concerns that it raises and my amendment addresses and will fix those concerns.

My amendment calls for a comprehensive study by GAO of the newly granted authority, to determine its impact on probationers, supervisees, third parties and the overall probation practice. This study shall sunset at 30 months after the effective date of this act.

These are concerns we should all have if we want to ensure that this bill works and reaches its intended purpose effectively.

In allowing the study, we will ascertain information that we otherwise, do not have but would have learned had we proceeded with a hearing on this bill.

This amendment will focus on the bill's impact in application.

The study will first review instances of any abuse of power in the exercise of such arrest authority.

Second, it will document any complaints made and/or filed regarding the exercise of probation officer arrest authority of third parties.

Third, it will study any harm resulting from the exercise of such arrest authority, including any civil action alleging the violation of a civil right in the exercise of this expanded authority.

I am confident that my colleagues would agree that public safety is paramount and that we should do everything we can to ensure that we are implementing sound policies that will foster trust and thereby, public safety.

The Rules Committee saw it fitting to rule my amendment in order, and now I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this amendment is a very important amendment, and I believe that it provides the kind of guidance that is necessary because it is a clear ascertaining of the impact.

Remember, we are talking about possible constitutional ramifications. Unreasonable search and seizure. We are talking about not having assaults against police officers. There is a law that will already provide for that protection, as well as the fact that probation officers who are not police officers can, in fact, have the ability of law enforcement backup or support.

In addition, we realize that there is a greater burden on law enforcement officers in an arrest situation. That burden is not on the probation officer because they are not a law enforcement officer.

It is important for this study to be enacted so that we have the facts. Do we not, as legislators, want to have the facts regarding the Constitution and the impact it may have?

So I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. It is, in fact, not an amendment that negates, if this bill passes, the acts of the probation officer. But what it does do is study whether there is an enhanced impact and whether grandmother, mother, a little child, an aunt, or an uncle, in the sanctity of their home, are unreasonably detained or arrested.

We as Americans should at least be concerned about the rights of our fellow citizens and be able to respect them in their home. A probation officer has the right to call in a law enforcement officer if the actions of the home, or wherever that individual happens to be, gets in a way that interferes with his or her ability to arrest his probationer.

Let me remind everyone that the relationship between a probation officer and a probationer is a constructive one, one of rehabilitation. And, sadly, if on one incident, or 39 incidents, or 3 percent of the incidents, if something occurs, that probation officer has the right to be able to call a law enforcement officer to assist.

This study is a constructive, forthright study to help us better protect the rights of citizens and of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the Federal Defenders of New York, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the ACLU opposing the underlying bill.

Federal Defenders of

New York, Inc.,

New York, NY, March 30, 2017.

Re Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 1039)

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chair, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.

Hon. Trey Gowdy,

Chair, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland

Security, and Investigations, Washington, DC.

Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,

Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,

Homeland Security, and Investigations, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Gowdy and Ms. Jackson

Lee: We write on behalf of the Federal Public and Community

Defenders in response to inquiries for our views on H.R.

1039, which would amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3606 to give probation

officers the authority to arrest, without a warrant, persons

not subject to court supervision if there is probable cause

to believe that the person has impeded or interfered with a

probation officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111. The

bill was introduced last Congress, and we understand that

there has been discussion of it being introduced again.

We oppose the bill because it would violate the Separation

of Powers, would invite Fourth Amendment violations, is

unnecessary for purposes of supervision or safety, and would

instead escalate the risk of harm to all concerned and

undermine effective supervision. The arrest or detention (to

any degree) of persons not subject to court supervision

should be left to law enforcement officers.

Summary

The bill would violate the Separation of Powers. Probation

officers serve as administrative units employed by Article

III courts. Congress may not assign to them the executive

function of enforcing a criminal statute against private

citizens not subject to court supervision. The bill would

also undermine the integrity of the Judicial Branch by

putting courts in the position of ruling on the

constitutionality of arrests by their own agents, who are

also interested arresting officers and alleged victims of an

offense.

The bill would create serious Fourth Amendment problems.

Assuming probation officers would use the bill's arrest

authority only to formally arrest persons believed to have

violated Sec. 111, the bill would result in Fourth Amendment

violations. Because Sec. 111 is notoriously unclear,

probation officers would inevitably arrest persons who are

merely ``uncooperative'' but have not actually violated the

statute. To allay concerns about giving probation officers

the equivalent of police power over private citizens, the

Judicial Conference assures Congress that probation officers

would rarely make formal arrests but would instead exercise a

``lesser included'' power to control or temporarily restrain

third parties short of formal arrest. But the Fourth

Amendment would not permit probation officers to exercise

such ``lesser included'' power. In holding that the Fourth

Amendment allows police officers to temporarily restrain

third parties during a search, the Supreme Court deemed it

``of prime importance'' that the officer had a warrant based

on probable cause to search the premises. The bill would not

change the fact that probation officers conduct searches

without a warrant based on probable cause. Thus, any

restraint of a third party by a probation officer absent

probable cause to arrest would violate the Fourth Amendment.

The bill is unnecessary. Probation officers have authority

under current law to search the homes of people they

supervise (without a warrant or probable cause) and to arrest

them for violating conditions of supervision (with probable

cause). Pursuant to Judiciary Policy, probation officers have

long relied on trained law enforcement officers to provide

support during searches, including by managing third parties

not under probation officers' supervision. No evidence has

been presented, and we have found none, of any instance in

which law enforcement officers have not assisted when asked,

or in which anyone has been hurt by a third party during a

search. Allowing probation officers to restrain and arrest

third parties would likely increase, not diminish, any risk

of harm.

The bill would undermine effective supervision. The bill

represents a retreat from the current constructive role of

probation officers in reintegrating offenders into society.

If probation officers assumed the role of police, directing

and restraining, or arresting, family and friends, progress

in individual cases and the system as a whole would be

undermined.

Background

Under current law, probation officers have limited special

authority to conduct searches and seizures of persons on

probation or supervised release for the sole purpose of

assisting the district courts in supervising those persons.

They are permitted, with or without a warrant, to conduct a

search of a supervisee's home based only on ``reasonable

suspicion'' that there is evidence on the premises that the

supervisee has violated a condition of his or her

supervision, and to arrest a supervisee whom they have

``probable cause to believe has violated a condition'' of his

or her supervision.

Judiciary Policy directs probation officers, in planning a

search, to ``strongly consider requesting assistance from law

enforcement officers for protection, instruction, and taking

possession of contraband during a search,'' and to terminate

any search ``if it is unsafe for the [probation] officer to

continue.''

Probation officers are further directed that they ``may not

restrain third parties during a search.'' This is so because

there is no authority for probation officers to detain third

parties. The Supreme Court's decisions holding that the

Fourth Amendment allows police officers to detain third

parties during a search do not apply to probation officers,

who both lack general law enforcement authority, and conduct

searches in the absence of a finding by a neutral magistrate

of probable cause to search the premises. Instead, probation

officers rely on law enforcement officers to manage third

parties if needed, thereby avoiding Fourth Amendment

violations and reducing any risk of harm.

A. The bill would violate the Separation of Powers

H.R. 1039 would authorize probation officers to arrest,

without a warrant, a person not subject to supervision if

there is probable cause to believe the person has interfered

with or impeded a probation officer ``while in the

performance of his or her official duties'' in violation of

18 U.S.C. Sec. 111. By its terms, the statute would authorize

probation officers to make such arrests at any time or

place--during a search of a supervisee's home, on the street

or at a place of business, or during a meeting at the

probation officer's office.

By authorizing probation officers to enforce Sec. 111

against private citizens not subject to court supervision,

H.R. 1039 would violate the Separation of Powers. Probation

officers are employed by the Judicial Branch to serve as

administrative units of the district court, appointed by the

court and removable by the court. A probation officer

performs no Article III function, but serves a statutory duty

to assist the court in supervising offenders.

Detecting crimes and enforcing criminal laws, in contrast,

are ``quintessential law enforcement functions vested in the

Executive Branch.'' Just as Congress may not confer executive

duties ``of a nonjudicial nature'' on Article III judges,

Congress may not enlist an administrative arm of the Judicial

Branch to perform an executive function.

This is not only a formalistic concern. A probation officer

who has arrested a private citizen for impeding the probation

officer in his duties would naturally have a direct, personal

interest in both the legality of the arrest and the outcome

of any resulting criminal case. The court, in turn, is the

probation officer's employer. When ruling on a challenge to

the constitutionality of an arrest by a probation officer,

the court would thus review the actions of its own agent, who

is also the interested arresting officer and alleged victim

of an offense. By putting the court in the triple position of

judge, vicarious victim, and arresting agent of ordinary

citizens, H.R. 1039 would undermine the integrity of the

Judicial Branch.

B. The bill would create serious Fourth Amendment problems

Subject to ``only a few specifically established and well

delineated exceptions,'' the Fourth Amendment prohibits

police officers from detaining persons (to any degree) absent

probable cause or ``prior approval by judge or magistrate.''

Even assuming probation officers used the bill's arrest

authority for no other purpose but to make formal arrests

based on probable cause that a person has violated Sec. 111,

the bill would result in unconstitutional detentions.

Section 111 prohibits ``forcibly'' assaulting, resisting,

opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with an

officer ``while engaged in'' the performance of official

duties. While one would think that ``forcible'' conduct is

easy to recognize in this context, the term is notoriously

ambiguous, involving a ``troublesome question of degree.'' No

physical contact is required even for assault, and

``forcibly'' has been held to cover such conduct as a

``fighting stance'' with an ``uncooperative attitude,'' but

not to cover running away and struggling when tackled by

police. The statute is ``not a model of clarity,''

``inartfully drafted,'' and leaving ``major ambiguities,''

often requiring many pages of legal analysis to decipher.

If even the courts find the statute unclear, a probation

officer surely cannot be expected to make an accurate on-the-

scene assessment of probable cause that a person has violated

it. Some probation officers would inevitably use their new

authority to arrest persons who are merely

``uncooperative''--such as by refusing to identify

themselves, declining to open a door, or attempting to leave

the scene of a search--but who have not violated Sec. 111.

The bill would thus invite Fourth Amendment violations.

To allay potential concerns about giving probation officers

the equivalent of police power over private citizens, the

Judicial Conference assures Congress that probation officers

would rarely make formal arrests for violations of Sec. 111.

Instead, they would use a purported ``lesser included''

authority, during ``searches and other work-related contacts

(e.g., home visits),'' to ``verbally or if necessary by

temporarily restraining'' (i.e., with handcuffs)

``uncooperative or hostile'' third parties short of arrest.

Probation officers would not need probable cause to believe

that a third party had violated Sec. 111 in order to exercise

this ``lesser-included'' authority; instead, they would

direct, control and temporarily detain third parties whom

they merely suspect have violated or will violate Sec. 111,

or believe to present a ``potential safety risk.''

But the Fourth Amendment does not permit probation officers

to exercise this ``lesser included'' power. Under an

exception to the Fourth Amendment's probable cause

requirement, police officers, when executing a search

warrant, are permitted to temporarily restrain third parties

absent probable cause for arrest, including by using

handcuffs. In holding such detentions to be ``reasonable,''

the Supreme Court emphasized the fact--``of prime

importance''--that the search was authorized by a neutral

magistrate's finding of probable cause to search the

premises.

Probation officers, however, conduct searches without a

warrant based on a finding of probable cause by a neutral

magistrate, and they conduct home visits with no suspicion at

all. For these reasons, the Administrative Office of the U.S.

Courts in 2007 reaffirmed its policy that probation officers

``may not restrain'' ``restrict[] the movement of third

parties'' present during a search. Under established Fourth

Amendment law, third parties are ``under no obligation to

cooperate and must be free to leave.'' The AO's General

Counsel correctly noted that ``increas[ing] [probation]

officers' statutory arrest authority under Sec. 3606'' would

not solve the Fourth Amendment problem because probation

officers would still conduct searches without a warrant based

on probable cause.

Likewise, H.R. 1039 would not change the fact that

probation officers conduct searches without a warrant based

on a finding of probable cause, the factor ``of prime

importance'' to the constitutionality of police officers

restraining third parties during a search. As a result, any

restraint or control of third parties by probation officers

absent grounds for arrest would be an unconstitutional

detention. The bill does not obviate this fundamental Fourth

Amendment problem.

C. The bill is unnecessary

U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services reported that in both

2014 and 2015, probation officers encountered third patties

described as ``uncooperative'' (defined to include refusal to

identify themselves, to come out of a closed room, or to

remain in a designated area) in only 3 percent of reported

searches. Only two incidents of any significance were

reported. In one, the supervisee's mother drove her car

toward two officers ``in an apparent attempt to hit them,''

but law enforcement officers were present and able to take

any action needed. In the other, a third party ``refused to

come out'' of a closed room, but law enforcement officers

were present, forced the door open, and found the person

swallowing marijuana cigarettes.

Nonetheless, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers

Association (``FLEOA'') claims that there is, a new

``heightened danger in field and office contacts'' and that

giving probation officers third-party arrest authority is the

``only [] solution.'' It claims that probation officers'

ability to enlist law enforcement officers ``provides little,

if any, help'' because sometimes only one police officer is

available. It gives three anecdotal examples, but they do not

support the FLEOA's argument, and in fact demonstrate that

the bill is not the ``only solution,'' much less a safe

solution.

In the Northern District of Alabama, probation officers

came to see their supervisee, but he was not at home. They

were leaving the premises when they encountered his father,

who was intoxicated, made threats, and threw an empty liquor

bottle at their car.

The probation officers drew their weapons, called 911, got

behind their vehicle, then drove away. The FLEOA states that

with arrest authority, the probation officers ``would have

taken the third party into custody for assaulting them and

for damaging government property.'' But the FLEOA does not

explain why this would have been necessary for the purpose of

supervising the son, who was not there, or to ensure anyone's

safety. The police were fully capable of subduing or

arresting the father, and most likely did, though that detail

is omitted. Had the probation officers confronted the father,

with guns drawn, they, the father, or innocent bystanders,

including the offender's cooperative mother, may well have

been hurt.

In the District of Utah, probation officers knocked on the

door of their supervisee's residence and were told by his

girlfriend that he was not at home and that no one else was

there. The probation officers ``ultimately encountered two

third party felons hiding in separate locations,'' one of

whom was suspected of homicide. The officers ``issued their

verbal commands,'' and the man became confrontational and

challenged the officers to ``shoot him.'' The officers

retreated, and ``local police ultimately subdued the third

party and took him into custody.'' Again, the FLEOA does not

explain how arrest authority would have increased the

probation officers' or public safety any better than the

police in fact accomplished.

In the Southern District of New York, probation officers

looking to confirm that their supervisee did not live at his

reported residence were ``confronted'' outside the residence,

where the supervisee apparently did not live, with ``a

belligerent, unknown, third party.'' A physical altercation

ensued, when ``another third party charged forward swinging a

pipe wrench.'' The officers used pepper spray and left. The

FLEOA asserts that the probation officers ``did not have the

option to control the third parties,'' but instead were

``forced to retreat.'' But the FLEOA does not explain how

controlling the third parties, which would likely have

escalated a potentially dangerous confrontation, was safer

than retreat, much less the ``only solution.'' The probation

officers' mission was not urgent, and they were free to

return with police support.

The Judicial Conference provides no empirical evidence or

even anecdotal examples illustrating the purported need for

H.R. 1039. It says that, ``in the absence of other law

enforcement officers acting in a supporting role,'' a

supervisee can work with a ``hostile or uncooperative'' third

party ``to conceal violations of the terms of supervision, or

even new criminal activity.'' But the solution is the very

one suggested and that has been directed by Judiciary Policy

and followed by probation officers all along: obtain support

from law enforcement officers.

There is not a single instance cited in the U.S. Probation

Search-and-Seizure reports, in the FLEOA's proposal or recent

letter, or in the Judicial Conference's proposal or recent

letter, in which probation officers requested law enforcement

assistance in advance, or called for assistance from the

scene, and law enforcement declined to assist or failed to

show up. One of the dangers of the bill is that probation

officers would not request law enforcement support, thinking

they can handle any problems with their arrest authority. But

potential problems are best averted by law enforcement

officers, who not only have arrest authority, but ``provide

perimeter security, manage third parties, provide special

services such as K9 support, and conduct initial security

sweeps.''

D. The bill would undermine effective supervision

H.R. 1039 represents an unfortunate retreat from the

current role of probation officers, which has evolved from an

oppositional focus on enforcement and punishment to a

constructive collaboration aimed at addressing clients'

criminogenic needs, reducing their risk of recidivism, and

reintegrating them into society. These ``concerted efforts to

bring to life state-of-the-art evidence-based supervision

practices into the federal system'' coincide with

``[m]easurable decreases in federal recidivism.'' As the

Judicial Conference has recognized, supporting the offender

``in efforts to turn away from criminal conduct . . . will

necessarily . . . promote public safety.'' And it has

cautioned that searches ``may undermine the rapport that an

officer has developed with an offender and may hinder the

progress that an offender has made.'' We fear that the

progress that has been made in individual cases and in the

system as a whole would be undermined if probation officers

assumed the role of police, directing, restraining and

arresting family and friends, and potentially escalating the

risk of confrontation and danger to all concerned.

Thank you for considering our views, and please do not

hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Very Truly Yours,

David Patton,

Executive Director, Federal Defenders of New York, Co-

Chair, Federal Defender Legislative Committee.

Jon Sands,

Federal Defender, District of Arizona, Co-Chair, Federal

Defender Legislative Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1039, but first and foremost, I want to make sure that we recognize and honor the work and sacrifice that our police and first responders do each and every day.

This week is National Police Week and, frankly, it is an opportunity to honor every week, but in particular this week, those who run toward the gunfire, those who run toward the building on fire every day.

In my own district in Colorado, I hear so many countless stories of heroic acts and going above and beyond the call of duty by those on the front lines of keeping us safe. In one example in Colorado, Officer Ross Maynard responded to a domestic violence situation. The victim's former boyfriend had broken a living room window in the middle of January, leaving the victim and her young daughter exposed to our record cold temperatures. Maynard went above and beyond his duty and covered the window to keep out the elements. He vacuumed the shattered glass from the floor when he found out the victim didn't have a vacuum so that the child didn't receive cuts from the glass.

In example of heroism, dispatcher Sara Demgen calmly helped a man deliver his son when his wife went into labor and they realized they wouldn't be able to make it to the hospital.

It is individuals like these who we should celebrate and support through our work here in Congress. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today doesn't make anyone safer, and if we passed it, it would bring about a constitutionally dubious process that could interfere with the important work of law enforcement professionals.

Part of the reason this is problematic legislation is because the process this legislation followed--like a lot of stuff that we have to vote on--was not transparent and was not regular order. There was no hearing on this bill. Even if we look back at last year's version of the bill, there was no hearing on that one, either.

Then we look at the rule that we are debating now. Mr. Speaker, a rule means what is the process for amending this bill. What we have here is a shutting down of that process, where they didn't provide an open rule. They allowed only one amendment as part of this bill that had been offered. There was no opportunity on the floor, through what is called an open rule, for Democrats or Republicans to offer good ideas to improve this legislation.

Of the six amendments that were submitted that the Committee on Rules considered yesterday, five of them were killed by the Committee on Rules and not even allowed to be voted on or debated by the House of Representatives. Now, the number of times I have had to come to this floor and argue against a closed rule or a structured rule is exhausting, and it is contrary to Speaker Ryan's promise that he made for the world to hear that he would bring us back to regular order and give everybody input on legislation that we consider in what is supposed to be the people's House.

This rule, yet again, is not open. It rules five of the six amendments out of order. The confidence and the trust in the House of Representatives, it is hard to imagine how it could even sink much lower, but it is restrictive processes and rules like this where neither Republicans or Democrats are allowed to even offer amendments or debate amendments to improve the legislation

that have led to the record level of distrust in this body.

In a moment, I will look forward to discussing the bill itself, but I just wanted to take this occasion in particular to celebrate our law enforcement professionals on National Police Week and every week.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that with each passing day, we learn more about the tangled web of conflicts of interest and secret meetings with Russians in and around the Trump campaign and Trump administration. Last week, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey while he was overseeing the FBI's investigation into possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian Government, after reportedly asking Director Comey personally to drop the investigation into former National Security Advisor Flynn's ties to Russia. This week, we also learned that President Trump revealed highly classified information provided by an ally to Russian officials.

Without President Trump's tax returns, we have no way of knowing if he himself has financial ties or is financially beholden to Russia or Russian interests, as news reports have suggested. The American people deserve to know whether or not President Trump has conflicts of interest, financial interests, or business dealings with Russia or other foreign governments. It is imperative that we, as the people's representatives, hold the executive branch fully accountable.

Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 305, which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns.

If the President truly has nothing to hide, including business dealings or being economically beholden to Russia, he should freely release his tax returns to reassure the American people that they can have confidence that he is not acting out of conflict of interest but, rather, in our interest as a nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our important proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), the former Orlando police chief, and my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As the gentleman knows, we grant necessary waivers for amendments all the time. It is a very routine thing. So to argue it is not germane, the Rules Committee can grant the necessary waivers for any of these amendments. And, frankly, these amendments are more germane to what the American people care about than the underlying bill.

Mrs. Demings' amendment that states that the Director of the FBI may only be removed for inefficiency or neglect of duty or misuse of office, what could be more germane to the concerns of the American people than that? All it would have taken was granting necessary waivers, as the Rules Committee does regularly on a number of bills when it suits their interests.

Another amendment from Representative Kennedy was rejected to reinstate the authority to appoint independent counsel for purposes of an independent investigation.

One from Representative Lawrence was rejected to reinstate the authority for independent counsel.

Representative Lieu had an amendment to reinstate the authority for independent counsel to investigate and was not allowed.

Representative Moulton had one.

So all of those amendments, even though they are more germane than any of the other items of what the American people care about, were, nevertheless, not granted the necessary waivers to be included in this bill.

The bill we are considering under this bill is highly problematic. It, frankly, serves to hurt the very people it purports to protect.

I know we all value the safety of our first responders and the safety of our communities. This bill would hurt the relationship police have with communities without any need. It is truly a solution in search of a problem.

This legislation would give Federal probation officers authority to arrest third parties, not the person that they are working with on probation, the ability to arrest them without a warrant.

When referring to third parties, that means people who are not under the authority of the police officer. It could mean a mother of someone on probation, a roommate, somebody who shares a house, and somebody doesn't want the probation officer to come into their room because the probation officer doesn't have a warrant, even if the parolee is in a different room.

We need to remember that an individual, of course, gives up some of their rights, including their Fourth Amendment rights, as a condition of probation. But not everybody who comes into contact with that person also should be required to give up their Fourth Amendment rights. The mother in this example has not given up those constitutional rights, which read: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. . . .''

And simply being a roommate or a family member of somebody who is on probation should not mean you lose your constitutional rights as an American citizen.

If in this example the mother doesn't want the probation officer to enter her room, she has that right, unlike the parolee. But this bill would change the dynamics and allow the probation officer to say she was interfering and arrest her, something that likely violates her Fourth Amendment protections and would be overturned by the courts.

This would make family and friends of individuals entering probation from prison scared of allowing the person on probation to live in their homes. This could lead to increased recidivism and increased crime. It will create a huge hindrance to the probation system and the goal of successfully encouraging people to reenter society and avoid breaking the law.

If people don't have a family member or friend to live with, successful reentry becomes harder and almost impossible. We need to remember that probation officers are part of the judicial branch, but police are members of the executive branch. Not only does this legislation complicate that, but it is a violation of separation of powers.

When an individual is granted probation, as a condition of that probation they give up certain rights, and that is understandable, and under the authority and supervision of the judicial branch in doing so. Third parties have not made that agreement with the judicial branch. They are not their jurisdiction. They are not adjudicated by the judicial branch. And probation officers should not have the authority to arrest them without a warrant provided by an officer of the peace.

However, even if we don't care about the constitutional rights of citizens, which I certainly hope we care about, we should care about the fact that this bill would reduce the safety of our probation officers. This legislation creates a very unsafe situation for our probation officers who are not trained in law enforcement.

On average, a Federal probation officer completes six weeks of training. That is compared to 21 weeks of training and 3 weeks of field for a police officer. That is simply not the same level of training.

With the disparity, doesn't it make sense for probation officers to use the assistance of police when they actually do need to arrest an uncooperative third party or serve a warrant based on probable cause?

With additional police powers come more likelihood people could be put in harm's way, and that is the opposite of what we want for someone who doesn't have the proper training.

I also want to talk about why the bill is so bad. In many ways, I asked myself the question: What problem are we trying to solve? Even if we look at the associations that are pushing for this legislation, the data just doesn't show that there is a need or that this would be a productive step towards either keeping our communities safer--and this bill would also put the lives of our probation officers at risk.

In a letter earlier this year, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association stated that ``formal arrests by probation officers are rare.'' And 2015 data shows that, of the 987 searches conducted, only 30 uncooperative third parties, and even less arrests.

With so few incidents, it is, frankly, better for probation officers to call or use the assistance of well-trained police officers, if needed. That is the answer.

The proponents of this bill claim they have brought the bill forward at the request of our first responders. But the request was not even close to unanimous.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by officers, chiefs of police, probation officers, and other first responders in opposition to the bill.

May 16, 2017.

Dear Member of Congress: We are current or retired law

enforcement officers concerned about public safety,

constitutional policing practices, and building trust between

law enforcement and the communities we serve. In light of

Police Week, some Members of Congress have sponsored bills

that would increase incarceration rates, enhance penalties

for certain crimes, and, ultimately, weaken relationships

between communities and police departments.

The idea that ``law and order'' has declined in the

previous decade does a disservice to the law enforcement

officers who have taken oaths to protect and serve their

local communities. Those officers deserve programs and

policies that fund critical training, enhance important

policing skills that improve officer and public safety, and

offer technical assistance and operational support. We are

deeply troubled by recent legislative and executive actions

that support this divisive ``law and order'' rhetoric and

that chip away at our hard-fought efforts to sustain long-

term trust between our communities and law enforcement

agencies.

As officers who have handled high-profile incidents and

routine investigations, we know that keys to success are

strong leadership and morale, officer training and

accountability, and community trust and engagement. Below, we

offer several recommendations based upon these principles.

Programs that support mental health services for officers.

A number of law enforcement agencies are increasingly

recognizing the importance of regular mental health checks,

crisis hotlines, peer mentoring programs, and other mental

health services to alleviate the stress and trauma that

officers face.

Policies and programs for de-escalation and crisis

intervention training. As a result of such training, law

enforcement agencies learn to apply strategies that reduce

the likelihood of force-related incidents. De-escalation

training is essential to reducing the number of violent

confrontations between law enforcement and communities, as

well as increasing methods for age appropriate responses when

interacting with youth to improve their safety and well-being

in communities. These trainings promote best practices and,

as a result, reduce the risk of injury to police officers and

members of the community.

Policies that promote crisis intervention training

incorporating the services of mental health professionals.

Such professionals can assist officers in identifying and

responding to a person impacted by mental illness, an

intoxicating substance, or emotional distress. The public

safety benefits resulting from this training are well-

documented and broadly supported by policing and public

safety experts.

Programs that assist officers with understanding the

effects of systemic trauma and better deal with the aftermath

of trauma. Trauma sensitivity or trauma informed training can

help officers identify individuals showing signs of trauma

related behaviors, which may include: aggression; difficulty

processing information; impulsiveness; heightened fight,

flight, or freeze response; and hypersensitivity to noise or

physical contact. Training can help law enforcement avoid

interpreting such behaviors as requiring more aggression or

use of force and, instead, guide officers to respond in a

more informed and appropriate manner.

Policies and programs that incorporate implicit bias

training into police training at all levels. Implicit bias

training helps police officers mitigate racial bias during

community interactions, encourage respectful encounters, and

promote constitutional policing with the goal of building

trust with communities.

Programs that collect data on deaths and use-of-force

incidents by law enforcement. Specifically, we encourage you

to support the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Use-

of-Force Data Collection Program, which expands the Uniform

Crime Report Program to include use of force incidents by law

enforcement resulting in serious bodily injury. The Death in

Custody Reporting Act, which was signed into law in 2014,

must also be properly implemented.

Support the Collaborative Reform Initiative of the U.S.

Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services. The Collaborative Reform Initiative is a

valuable program that offers technical assistance and

operational support to local police departments to improve

policing practices, transparency, professionalism,

accountability, community inclusion, and procedural fairness.

The Collaborative Reform Initiative enables police

departments--which participate on a voluntary basis--to

sustain longterm, significant reforms in a manner that

improves trust between police and communities and meets the

public safety goals of residents. The work of DOJ's Civil

Rights Division around policing must also be supported and

sustained.

During Police Week, we urge you to prioritize federal

programs, funding, and legislation that support the above

polices, rather than legislation that would undercut

partnerships with our local communities. We invite you to

reach out to us about the above priorities and ask that you

support legislation and funding that champion these important

issues.

Sincerely,

Hassan Aden, Police Chief (Ret.), Greenville (NC) Police

Department; Chief James Abbott, West Orange (NJ) Police

Department; Officer Nick Bucci (Ret.), New Jersey State

Police; Sheriff Jerry L. Clayton, Washtenaw County (MI)

Sherriff's Office; Captain James Davidsaver (Ret.), Lincoln

(NE) Police Department; Deputy Chief Stephen Downing (Ret.),

Los Angeles Police Department; Former Probation/Parole

Officer and Corrections Counselor Shelley Fox-Loken, Oregon;

Major Neill Franklin (Ret.), Baltimore and Maryland State

Police Department; Officer Brian Gaughan (Ret.), Davenport,

Iowa and Chicago; Lieutenant Commander Diane Goldstein

(Ret.), Redondo Beach Police Department.

Ron Hampton, Community Relations Officer, D.C. Metropolitan

Police Department (Ret.); Blacks in Law Enforcement of

America; Officer Karen Hawke (Ret.), Massachusetts State

Police; Former Federal Corrections Officer Regina Hufnagel,

Boston, Massachusetts; Commissioner Terence Inch (Ret.),

Hellam Township (PA) Police Department; Senior Patrol Officer

Tim Johnson (Ret.), Madison (OH) Township Police Department;

Commissioner George Kain, Ph.D, Ridgefield (CT) Board of

Police Commissioners; Analyst Richard Kennedy (Ret.), Central

Intelligence Agency; Chief Larry Kirk (Ret.), Old Monroe (MO)

Police Department; Former Special Agent David Long, U.S.

Department of Labor; Former Detective and Deputy Sheriff Nick

Morrow, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

Lieutenant Joanne Naughton (Ret.), New York Police

Department; Chief Norm Stamper (Ret.), Seattle (WA) Police

Department; Special Agent Ray Strack (Ret.), Department of

Homeland Security, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Former Police

Officer Silvestre Tanenbaum, Carrollton (TX) Police

Department; Sergeant Carl Tennenbaum (Ret.), San Francisco

Police Department; Former Detention Officer and Deputy

Marshal Jason Thomas, Prowers County, Colorado; Detective

James Trainum (Ret.), Washington Metropolitan Police

Department; Deputy Sheriff Darren Ullmann, Cowlitz County

(OR) Sheriff's Office; Federal Probation Officer LeRoy

Washington (Ret.), Hawaii; Officer Jack Wilborn (Ret.),

Glendale (AZ) Police Department; Detective Howard Wooldridge

(Ret.), Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, as they state, in part, in the letter: ``We are deeply troubled by recent legislative and executive actions that support this divisive `law and order' rhetoric and that chip away at our hard-fought efforts to sustain long-term trust between our communities and law enforcement agencies.''

This letter is signed by many current and former police chiefs, sheriffs, and other law enforcement officials.

In the letter that I included in the Record, which will now appear for the world to see, law enforcement professionals say that instead of pushing forward with this bill that we are being asked to consider under a closed and restrictive rule, we should focus on mental health and trauma services for officers to support them, programs and policies for de-escalation and crises intervention training, better staffing for our police agencies and probation officers, programs and policies that incorporate implicit bias training into police training and probation office training, and community-oriented policing. These are the types of policies that Democrats, and myself, would love to put forward during National Police Week to support our law enforcement professionals and to keep our communities safe.

Why aren't we focusing on those kinds of ideas, rather than a solution in search of a problem?

It is National Police Week, and we should be supporting legislation that protects and supports our police, not create a greater schism between our community and police through an unconstitutional bill that puts the lives of our probation officers at risk, and will likely increase recidivism among those on probation.

We can do better. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 324 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on House Resolution 324, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Committee on Rules today. The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 1039, the Probation Officer Protection Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit and makes in order an amendment by Congresswoman Jackson Lee of Texas.

On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules had the opportunity to hear from my fellow Committee on the Judiciary members: Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Cicilline, and Ms. Jackson Lee.

H.R. 1039 was marked up by the Committee on the Judiciary on May 3 and favorably reported by the committee without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we debate this rule and the underlying bill this week during National Police Week. As the son of a Georgia State Trooper, it is an honor to come before this House to help advance legislation that protects the men and women of law enforcement. The dangers our law enforcement officers face are real, and I know too well the fear that a loved one might not come home after leaving for a routine shift. This week we had the opportunity to recognize those who make our communities safer, and we are humbled to advance the policies that support their efforts, and we honor their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out that the sponsor of the underlying bill we are discussing, the Probation Officer Protection Act, is a former law enforcement officer himself. My friend Dave Reichert from Washington State is Sheriff Reichert also, who led the task force responsible for solving the case of the infamous Green River serial killer. Along with him, I serve on the Policing Strategies Working Group, and I commend him for his work on the underlying legislation and his tireless advocacy on behalf of the heroes who wear the badge.

The Probation Officer Protection Act is a commonsense, yet modest, expansion of the Federal probation officers' existing arrest authority. Under current law, 18 U.S. Code section 111, it is a crime for a person to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any Federal official in the performance of his or her official duties. While the Federal officials described by this statute include probation officers, probation officers are limited in their ability to take affirmative actions in order to protect themselves when they face these threats not from the offender but from third parties.

Mr. Speaker, while probation officers can make arrests of those under their supervision, the first party, such as a parolee or individual serving a term of probation or supervised release, the law does not allow probation officers to take action to protect themselves should a third party impede or assault them.

In fact, if a third party, such as a family member or friend of a parolee, threatens or attacks a probation officer, that officer's only recourse is to retreat and call for local law enforcement.

Think about that, Mr. Speaker. I want to read that again.

If a third party, such as a family member or friend of a parolee, threatens or attacks a probation officer, that officer's only recourse is to retreat and call for local law enforcement.

Because the law has failed to equip probation officers with the authority to arrest an aggressive third party, probation officers have limited recourse when their safety is uncertain. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable and even defies reason. When probation officers find themselves in a dangerous situation involving third parties, they are at the mercy of happenstance. Perhaps, in urban areas, other law enforcement agents may be in proximity and able to respond. Perhaps, at times, the brave men and women who oversee offenders on release may have access to the backup they need once a third party threat has been established. But I will tell you this, in these certain areas that may happen. But it is possible, though, that without the authority to deescalate or manage a dangerous situation without the necessary authority to arrest threatening third parties, probation officers will remain unnecessarily vulnerable to attacks, violence, or even death.

In rural areas, like my district in northeast Georgia, a probation officer's restricted authority to arrest could pose an even greater risk to their well-being. Local law enforcement agencies in rural areas are often smaller and more separated from backup by distance. This means that probation officers who call for help could be subject to longer response times in the very moment they need the assistance the most.

Considering these facts, Mr. Speaker, it is reasonable to make a narrow, yet important, adjustment to current law in order to ensure that the probation officers have third-party arrest authority when they are forcibly threatened by that third party. Simply put, probation officers enter dangerous situations for the benefit of our communities and should be able to effectively protect themselves and others.

The Probation Officer Protection Act would address this flaw in current law by providing necessary recourse for probation officers. Under the terms of the bill, probation officers would have the authority to arrest hostile third parties who forcibly assault, resist, or otherwise impede a probation officer as they are carrying out their sworn duties.

We have heard examples of probation officers making visits to those under supervision, only to be greeted by third parties who are wielding knives or baseball bats or yelling obscenities at the officers as they attempt to serve the larger community. In these events, probation officers should not be handicapped in their ability to perform their jobs while protecting their own safety. As we know all too well, situations with agitated third parties can escalate in an instant. Officers on site need to be equipped to deescalate dangerous situations for the good of the supervisee, the probation officer, and any bystanders.

This legislation does not represent an unprecedented or large-scale expansion of authority for probation officers. Probation officers already have limited arrest authority for first-party offenders. They are also bound by formal search and seizure policy and arrest procedures. Probation officers receive training that instructs them in properly detaining offenders so that they will be equipped with the necessary skills to manage dangerous individuals in circumstances that might warrant it.

Mr. Speaker, the intent behind the underlying bill is but one example of a larger effort behind much of the legislation we have seen on the floor this week. Every day, law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to protect us. Every day, they face dangerous situations for the sake of their neighbors. Law enforcement officers across the country bravely walk into uncertain situations prepared to protect and defend you and me and the people that we love.

I believe that our Nation's law enforcement--be they local, county, State, or Federal agents--overwhelmingly abide by their oath to protect and serve. In turn, we should remember their bravery and sacrifices each day and thank those who risk their lives to protect us. We must also thank the families who kiss their loved ones good-bye each morning, fully aware of the risk that their service entails.

Our men and women in blue should experience our gratitude every day, but this week, during Police Week, it is right for us to take the extra care to commemorate those who have fallen and to honor those who are serving.

As thousands of law enforcement professionals visit our Nation's Capital this week, I encourage all of my colleagues to thank them for their service. Also, I ask that all of my colleagues in this body look at this commonsense piece of legislation and show their support by voting ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate my colleague pointing out certain things. Again, I think pointing out the complete story there would also be helpful, and that is that the amendments spoken of that were not made in order, following the rules of the House, the Jefferson's Manual, and all were not germane. The one amendment that was offered was made in order for this bill. The others were not germane. If they want to be brought up in a separate bill or separate order or find a bill that is actually germane to it, then that is a different issue, but not in this one.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind everyone, as we have discussed here and we hear impassioned arguments for amendments that were not germane, find proper places to put amendments, and find bills that you want to write. That is all fair. That is in our rule book. But remember, the only germane amendment was made in order. I repeat, the only germane amendment was made in order.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I appreciate the debate today. Also, I feel, in just a little bit of ways, I am sort of Alice in Wonderland here; what is up is down and what is down is up. I am not sure how you take this bill to, number one, say that probation officers would be any more in danger.

I would also, Mr. Speaker, like to include in the Record another letter that is from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association in support of what is going on here.

Federal Law Enforcement

Officers Association

Cabin John, MD, May 17, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Leader Pelosi: I am writing on behalf

of the nearly 27,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement

Officers Association to advise you of our

strong support for H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer

Protection Act,'' and to express our appreciation for the

Congress's consideration of this important officer safety

measure during National Police Week. FLEOA opposes the

amendment that will be offered on the floor to sunset the

authority provided by the bill, as you cannot put a stopwatch

on critical law enforcement officer protection measures such

as H.R. 1039.

The ``Probation Officer Protection Act'' is a critical

officer safety measure. At a time when U.S. Probation

Officers have seen their workloads increase due to changes in

sentencing policy and are being asked to ``do more with the

same,'' ensuring that they have the means to protect

themselves when placed in harm's way is paramount. H.R. 1039

will fully authorize a U.S. Probation Officer to arrest any

third party who violates 18 USC 111. This statute has been on

the books since the 1940s and makes it a crime for any person

to forcibly assault, resist, intimidate, or interfere with

any federal officer in the performance of their official

duties. Current law, however, only allows Probation Officers

to make arrests of individuals on probation or under

supervised release who violate 18 USC 111. This authority

does not extend to ``third parties,'' which could include a

former associate of the offender or an unidentified member of

the community. In many instances third parties are well aware

that a federal officer's authority is limited to individuals

on supervision, and when a third party does impede or assault

a U.S. Probation Officer, the Officer's only recourse is to

retreat and call for local law enforcement. While in major

cities local law enforcement may respond depending on

availability, the same is not true for U.S. Probation

Officers who work in rural communities where response by

local law enforcement may be a single officer or none. This

places Probation Officers at even greater risk, particularly

in those situations where retreat is not even a reasonably

safe alternative.

During the forthcoming debate on this bill, there will

undoubtedly be those who go to great lengths to demean U.S.

Probation Officers as something less than ``real'' law

enforcement officers or to diminish the hazards that they

face. Some may also raise inchoate objections about the

constitutionality of H.R. 1039. For example, you will hear

that Congress cannot extend Executive Branch police powers to

the Judicial Branch, despite the fact that it was Congress

that established the U.S. Supreme Court Police that resides

directly across the street from the U.S. Capitol. Not only

are such statements factually inaccurate, they display a

basic lack of understanding about those who serve our nation

as U.S. Probation Officers and the purposes behind the

``Probation Officer Protection Act.''

Make no mistake: U.S. Probation Officers are fully trained

federal law enforcement officers. They attend basic training

at the National Training Academy at the Federal Law

Enforcement Training Center in Charleston, SC, and receive

ongoing in-service training throughout the year. Their

training covers everything from firearms regulation and

safety and defensive tactics to handcuffing, the use of

force, de-escalation training, and reality-based scenario

training. It may be difficult for some to acknowledge, but

there is an inherent risk to the work U.S. Probation Officers

do--a risk that often outweighs that of traditional law

enforcement. They do not enter into sterile offices, but

often into environments that are uncertain. They are required

to have frequent and regular contacts in the home and

community and knowingly come into daily contact with

individuals who have a history of violence, mental health

issues, problems with authority, and troubles with substance

abuse. U.S. Probation Officers are not able to anticipate

what is going to occur during all contacts. There are and

have been occasions when U.S. Probation Officers are

threatened and/or attacked by third parties and they need the

ability to take an affirmative step to protect themselves.

U.S. Probation Officers are a unique profession. They have

a knowledge base in law and human behavior, and a mix of

skills in investigation, communication, and analysis. They

strive to make our communities safer, to make a positive

difference in the lives of those they serve, and promote

fairness in process and excellence in service. But as the

volume of approved searches they must conduct has markedly

increased over the past year due to changes in sentencing

policy, the absence of any authority to restrain or direct

the movements of third parties places U.S. Probation Officers

at a greater and unnecessary risk of physical harm. H.R. 1039

provides a modest expansion of U.S. Probation Officers'

existing arrest authority to cover only violations of 18 USC

111. It does not in any way provide them ``peace officer''

status or grant them the same general arrest authority that

state-level probation officers enjoy in many jurisdictions.

Granting U.S. Probation Officers the authority to arrest

third parties would not change who they are and what they are

seeking. Nor will it interfere with or otherwise diminish

U.S. Probation Officers' use of the de-escalation techniques

that are the hallmark of their profession. It would simply

afford them another tool, another avenue, if ever needed.

In the end, this legislation will enhance officer safety

while also protecting probationers and third parties by

preventing obstruction from escalating to actual violence.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this

legislation and for helping U.S. Probation Officers do their

job more safely by passing H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer

Protection Act.''

Sincerely,

Nathan R. Catura,

National President.

Mr. Speaker, I think what is interesting here is I can't really, frankly, understand sort of the shade, I guess, or the dismissiveness that is being thrown on probation officers and their lack of training, which is 6 weeks plus 40 hours additional, which is subject to their job.

The evidence that was presented here, the example of the person not wanting a search, many times a probation officer will come with a search warrant that will allow them to search anywhere. But even in the case of the lady who did not want her room searched, the bill specifically says forcible impeding, which is already discussed and talked about in law.

Also, any officer who witnesses a crime or is being attacked does not have to have a warrant to make an arrest. So, I mean, it is really interesting to me why we are discussing a bill and doing so in such a way for which there are actual instances where this takes place.

My friend said, well, it only happens a very few times. My question for this, as a son of a State trooper, if his name was Leonard Collins and he was actually going to do this, I would say that one matters, even if it is the only one--lives of these probation officers, one.

So why we are doing this, I am not really sure. Why we would oppose this, I am not really sure.

You can make stretched arguments here, but when a probation officer goes in and, in the words of the bill, is forcibly intimidated, impeded, attacked, they can arrest the person there who they have already had training in how to arrest. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, how you can make a good argument about that. You can try.

There will be debate here in just a few minutes, which this rule gives, because I would encourage voting ``no'' on the previous question and voting ``yes'' on this rule.

But there is also another issue that I do want to address. In this majority, since this majority has been in control, there has never been a waiver for germaneness on a floor amendment. Germaneness matters. So, again, find the proper place.

As we go forward, as we look, at least in my time here, this is one of the simple, straightforward issues. You are protecting and giving a chance for those probation officers who encounter something that most in this body now, in our current jobs, maybe in previous, have not had to face.

So the question for me today is simply this. It makes sense as a commonsense update. Support it. It enables them to carry out their job, protecting themselves.

The underlying bill simply provides additional resources for probation officers to protect themselves while, at the same time, freeing up the demands of other law enforcement officers in the area. When we understand the commitment that they make, I do not understand making legal sidestep arguments of hypotheticals that may or may not exist to say we should not give them another tool in their toolbox.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 324, I call up the bill (H.R. 1039) to amend section 3606 of title 18, United States Code, to grant probation officers authority to arrest hostile third parties who obstruct or impede a probation officer in the performance of official duties, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I asked unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1039.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting the amendment to H.R. 1039 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I address the bill under consideration today, I would like to take a few minutes to honor a very special

member of my staff, Burak Guvensoylar, who lost his courageous battle with cancer this past weekend.

Burak was a valued member of the Judiciary Committee team and worked on a variety of issues, including digital privacy and intellectual property. His vast knowledge and grasp of the issues impacting the technology community was a tremendous asset to the committee.

Most recently, Burak's work included the development of the committee's Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda; and his steadfast work and tenacious attitude were not only essential in making this initiative a success, but were also a testament to his character. In fact, while he was undergoing intensive cancer treatments, he was actively working and sending follow-up emails from his hospital bed. And just days before Burak passed away, he met with FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai to discuss a number of Judiciary Committee priorities. For Burak, nothing could prevent him from an opportunity to discuss and advance the policies he was so passionate about.

Burak was a true technology policy enthusiast. Prior to joining the staff of the Judiciary Committee, Burak served as a legislative adviser for Congressman Randy Forbes. While working for Congressman Forbes, Burak handled the diverse range of issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, but it was always evident that technology policy was his first love.

He cofounded the Congressional Tech Staff Association and served as an executive officer responsible for the professional development program.

Prior to his career on Capitol Hill, Burak worked at TechAmerica and CompTIA, focusing on international trade policy.

Burak has many friends here in the Halls of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I know all of my colleagues join me in extending our deepest sympathies to his mother, Filiz; his sister, Aylin Forbes; his girlfriend, Ashley Newsome; and all of his loved ones.

Burak will be deeply missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1039, the Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I want to thank the primary author of the bill, the gentleman from Washington, Congressman Reichert, for his leadership on this and many other law enforcement issues.

Under current law, a Federal probation officer may arrest a probationer or an offender on supervised released if the officer has probable cause to believe that the offender has violated a condition of his or her probation or release. The officer may make the arrest with or without a warrant.

Unfortunately, current law does not grant probation officers arrest authority in situations where a third party attempts to physically obstruct an officer or inflict physical harm on the officer. Despite the fact that interfering with a probation officer in the performance of his or her official duties is in itself a crime, Federal probation officers lack the authority to correct or restrain a physically interfering third party.

In fact, a probation officer's only course of action is to retreat from the situation. This not only exposes these officers to a heightened risk of harm, as they are not permitted to subdue the assailant, it also allows the probationer to conceal evidence that he has violated terms of his probation or supervised release or any other criminal activity.

H.R. 1039 is a reasonable and responsible remedy to this very real problem. This bill, which has the support of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, will protect probation officers and enhance their ability to do their job by giving them authority to arrest a third party who forcibly interferes with an officer's performance of his or her official duties.

This bill would not give probation officers general arrest authority. Rather, as noted, it grants them the very limited authority to arrest a third party who is interfering with the duties of the officer, which is already a Federal crime.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure to ensure that these dedicated men and women have the necessary authority to undertake their duties safely and effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many arguments in opposition to this legislation. We have carefully explained how each of these arguments is unfounded.

I simply want to again urge my colleagues to vote for this very simple, yet much-needed, piece of bipartisan legislation. Support the men and women of law enforcement with your vote. Support the Fraternal Order of Police who wrote a letter supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I enter in the Record the FOP letter.

National Fraternal

Order of Police,

Washington, DC, 15 February 2017.

Hon. David G. Reichert,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Reichert: I am writing on behalf of the

members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our

support for H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection

Act.'' This legislation will amend

section 3606 of Title 18, United States Code, to grant

probation officers authority to arrest hostile third parties

who obstruct or impede a probation officer in the performance

of official duties.

Probation officers supervise men, women and juveniles who

are convicted of a crime. Instead of a judge sentencing these

offenders to prison, the judge sentences them to close

supervision while continuing to live and work with the

general public. A probation officer's job title comes with an

inherent element of danger due to the supervision of

offenders such as drug addicts, sexual offenders and domestic

violence offenders who could turn violent at any time.

Offenders are often intimidated by the amount of power a

probation officer has over their freedom. If they feel the

officer will recommend a prison sentence or report illegal

activity, which may lead to a prison sentence, they may try

to eliminate this threat by harming the officer.

When probation officers are accosted by a violent third

party, they are forced to retreat because they have no third-

party arrest authority. They also cannot assist any police

officer at the scene who may have been called to assist. This

subjects everyone involved in the situation to greater risk

and can result in the loss of evidence, the escape of an

offender, or harm to an individual.

In the past, offenders typically reported to the probation

officer's office for scheduled visits. Now many probation

officers are required to make home visits where the offender

may have easy access to weapons. While the officer may carry

a gun, and have armed back up in some cases, often he or she

will go into the home or workplace alone without knowing

anything about other persons at the site.

For these reasons, this authority is needed and we are

proud to support your bill and look forward to working with

you on it.

On behalf of more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal

Order of Police, I want to thank you for introducing this

legislation and amendment. If I can be of further help,

please do not hesitate to contact me or my Senior Advisor,

Jim Pasco, in my Washington office.

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury,

National President.

Mr. Speaker, support the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, who called H.R. 1039 a ``critical officer safety measure'' in their letter of endorsement.

Support the National Association of Police Organizations, who said H.R. 1039 is a ``sensible solution that ensures the safety of the officer, the probationer, and the community.''

Mr. Speaker, I enter in the Record these letters.

Federal Law

Enforcement Officers Association,

Cabin John, MD, May 17, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Leader Pelosi: I am writing on behalf

of the nearly 27,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement

Officers Association to advise you of our strong support for

H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection Act,'' and to

express our appreciation for the Congress's consideration of

this important officer safety measure during National Police

Week. FLEOA opposes the amendment that will be offered on the

floor to sunset the authority provided by the bill, as you

cannot put a stopwatch on critical law enforcement officer

protection measures such as H.R. 1039.

The ``Probation Officer Protection Act'' is a critical

officer safety measure. At a time when U.S. Probation

Officers have seen their workloads increase due to changes in

sentencing policy and are being asked to ``do more with the

same,'' ensuring that they have the means to protect

themselves when placed in harm's way is paramount. H.R. 1039

will fully authorize a U.S. Probation Officer to arrest any

third party who violates 18 USC 111. This statute has been on

the books since the 1940s and makes it a crime for any person

to forcibly assault, resist, intimidate, or interfere with

any federal officer in the performance of their official

duties. Current law, however, only allows Probation Officers

to make arrests of individuals on probation or under

supervised release who violate 18 USC 111. This authority

does not extend to ``third parties,'' which could include a

former associate of the offender or an unidentified member of

the community. In many instances third parties are well aware

that a federal officer's authority is limited to individuals

on supervision, and when a third party does impede or assault

a U.S. Probation Officer, the Officer's only recourse is to

retreat and call for local law enforcement. While in major

cities local law enforcement may respond depending on

availability, the same is not true for U.S. Probation

Officers who work in rural communities where response by

local law enforcement may be a single officer or none. This

places Probation Officers at even greater risk, particularly

in those situations where retreat is not even a reasonably

safe alternative.

During the forthcoming debate on this bill, there will

undoubtedly be those who go to great lengths to demean U.S.

Probation Officers as something less than ``real'' law

enforcement officers or to diminish the hazards that they

face. Some may also raise inchoate objections about the

constitutionality of H.R. 1039. For example, you will hear

that Congress cannot extend Executive Branch police powers to

the Judicial Branch, despite the fact that it was Congress

that established the U.S. Supreme Court Police that resides

directly across the street from the U.S. Capitol. Not only

are such statements factually inaccurate, they display a

basic lack of understanding about those who serve our nation

as U.S. Probation Officers and the purposes behind the

``Probation Officer Protection Act.''

Make no mistake: U.S. Probation Officers are fully trained

federal law enforcement officers. They attend basic training

at the National Training Academy at the Federal Law

Enforcement Training Center in Charleston, SC, and receive

ongoing in-service training throughout the year. Their

training covers everything from firearms regulation and

safety and defensive tactics to handcuffing, the use of

force, de-escalation training, and reality-based scenario

training. It may be difficult for some to acknowledge, but

there is an inherent risk to the work U.S. Probation Officers

do--a risk that often outweighs that of traditional law

enforcement. They do not enter into sterile offices, but

often into environments that are uncertain. They are required

to have frequent and regular contacts in the home and

community and knowingly come into daily contact with

individuals who have a history of violence, mental health

issues, problems with authority, and troubles with substance

abuse. U.S. Probation Officers are not able to anticipate

what is going to occur during all contacts. There are and

have been occasions when U.S. Probation Officers are

threatened and/or attacked by third parties and they need the

ability to take an affirmative step to protect themselves.

U.S. Probation Officers are a unique profession. They have

a knowledge base in law and human behavior, and a mix of

skills in investigation, communication, and analysis. They

strive to make our communities safer, to make a positive

difference in the lives of those they serve, and promote

fairness in process and excellence in service. But as the

volume of approved searches they must conduct has markedly

increased over the past year due to changes in sentencing

policy, the absence of any authority to restrain or direct

the movements of third parties places U.S. Probation Officers

at a greater and unnecessary risk of physical harm. H.R. 1039

provides a modest expansion of U.S. Probation Officers'

existing arrest authority to cover only violations of 18 USC

111. It does not in any way provide them ``peace officer''

status or grant them the same general arrest authority that

state-level probation officers enjoy in many jurisdictions.

Granting U.S. Probation Officers the authority to arrest

third parties would not change who they are and what they are

seeking. Nor will it interfere with or otherwise diminish

U.S. Probation Officers' use of the de-escalation techniques

that are the hallmark of their profession. It would simply

afford them another tool, another avenue, if ever needed.

In the end, this legislation will enhance officer safety

while also protecting probationers and third parties by

preventing obstruction from escalating to actual violence.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this

legislation and for helping U.S. Probation Officers do their

job more safely by passing H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer

Protection Act.''

Sincerely,

Nathan R. Catura,

National President.

Mr. Speaker, collectively, these organizations represent over half a million sworn law enforcement officers. On this last day of National Police Week, let's join them in supporting this bill.

In this body, Members tend to frequently use the term ``common sense'' to describe a piece of legislation. I don't think many more pieces of legislation are as common sense as this bill.

It really boils down to this question: Should a law enforcement officer be able to arrest the individual who forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with that officer?

That is it. That is all we are talking about today. Common sense tells us that the answer is a resounding ``yes.''

It has been insinuated that probation officers aren't real law enforcement and lack the training to make arrests. I think the brave men and women who serve as Federal probation officers, who have received extensive training, and have ongoing training requirements as part of their jobs, might disagree with that insinuation.

Further, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and its Federal Probation and Pretrial Academy offer nationally standardized training programs and advanced training programs targeting specialized areas of supervision. Common sense tells us that these officers are qualified to make arrests.

Opponents of this bill would prefer to have these law enforcement officers retreat when confronted by third parties. Let's think about what some of the consequences of retreat might mean. If forced to retreat, that officer is forced to terminate interaction with a probationer who may urgently require services, such as substance abuse or mental health treatment. It also means contraband, such as firearms or narcotics, which could have been removed by the parole officer, remains in the community.

In short, the consequences of retreat place public safety in jeopardy. Common sense tells us that retreat is not a viable option.

There is nothing revolutionary going on here. There is no new Federal crime being added. This bill simply says that when someone forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with a probation officer, that probation officer can arrest that individual.

It is already a crime to engage in the behavior I just described. An individual who commits that act is going to get arrested. All we are debating today is who puts the handcuffs on the arrestee. Common sense tells us that the officer who was assaulted should have the authority to make the arrest.

Use common sense. Support H.R. 1039, the Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017, so that Federal probation officers can do their jobs safely and effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we just heard from my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), as co-chairs of the Law Enforcement Caucus, this is an important piece of legislation for us.

Mr. Speaker, as the lead Democrat sponsor of this bill, the Probation Officer Protection Act, I rise in strong support of closing a gap in the current law to help Federal probation officers more safely and effectively carry out their duties.

Despite the fact that assaulting, resisting, or otherwise preventing Federal probation officers from performing their official duties is against the law, current law does not provide the same officers the authority to correct or restrain an interfering third party. This act simply expands the authority of the Federal probation officers to arrest a third party with probable cause in cases where a third party tries to physically obstruct or harm the officer.

I understand that some of my friends worry about the implications of expanding arrest authority for law enforcement. I have to say there are a lot of trumped up arguments being made against this bill. For starters, Federal probation officers are fully trained and sworn Federal law enforcement officers. They have a tremendous training program in Charleston, South Carolina, the Law Enforcement Training Center. They understand that this training is a continuing process as well.

These officers receive extensive, ongoing, nationally standardized training to safely arrest individuals on supervised release with probable cause without a warrant. This training is also applicable to the limited arrest authority granted by this bill.

The idea that expanding probation officers' arrest authority to third parties will somehow lead to probation officers going on an unwarranted arresting spree, violating individuals' civil rights with impunity, is nonsense.

The bill includes language to ensure that the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts would issue national guidelines to implement this new, limited authority. The authority will not give Federal probation officers plenary law enforcement powers or general arrest authority. Probable cause still must exist to carry out an arrest. That is very clear in the legislation. The bill does nothing to alter Federal probation officers' scope of responsibility. To suggest so undermines the training these officers receive and the oaths that they take.

Secondly, I understand that constitutional concerns have been raised by my colleagues about the due process and rights of these third parties. Nothing in this bill, Mr. Speaker, alters the due process or rights of third parties. Nothing in the bill.

If a third party agrees to house an individual on supervised release, they consent to the Federal probation officer having access to common areas and any part of the home to which the offender has access. Additionally, Federal probation officers build a relationship with the third party housing the individual on supervised release in order to manage their expectations on what it means to have a supervised probationer living under their roof.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Federal probation officers conducted a total of 1,060 searches pursuant to a court-ordered search condition or with consent last year. More than half of the searches had at least one third party present. Despite relying on other law enforcement agencies for support and assistance during 493 of these searches, Federal probation officers encountered uncooperative third parties on 39 occasions.

So, Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have acknowledged, we are not talking about a significant number of instances where this additional authority is needed--remember, only 39 instances last year. Opponents claim these numbers are low, making this a solution in search of a problem. But in these 39 instances, a third party threatened, intimidated, refused to cooperate, and denied officers entry into residence to prevent an officer from doing their job.

Mr. Speaker, opponents claim, that is their claim that they have.

This is against the law, plain and simple. The probation officer in these instances did not have the authority they needed to remedy the situation.

No one wants to increase the number of arrests. That is not the purpose of the legislation. In a perfect world, everyone wants a situation to be deescalated before an arrest or a detention happens. Ideally, Federal probation officers would have the resources to visit their probe with a law enforcement officer.

However, we don't live in a perfect world. Oh? These resources are not always available. Third parties sometimes intentionally interfere to prevent a Federal probation officer from performing their official duties.

I urge my colleagues to support the Probation Officer Protection Act to ensure Federal probation officers are able to do their job safely and more effectively by giving them third-party arrest authority when probable cause exists.