Thin Blue Line Act

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan for his yielding and for his leadership and for the pleasure that I have in working on the Judiciary Committee. Let me thank the chairman and Members as well, particularly working on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, of which this underlying bill comes to the floor on.

This is a very important week, Mr. Speaker. It is National Police Week. A number of our constituents have been here, and we have had the opportunity to hear from a number of outstanding leaders: a sheriff from Los Angeles County; the sheriff from South Carolina; the police department leader from Houston, Texas; and the head of the FOP.

So I think that we have had a good week in terms of hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and certainly this past Monday we honored those who tragically ascended to the memorial wall where we honor police from across the Nation.

So I think it is important to put on the record that none of us, I would hope--I certainly don't--take a back seat to the respect, admiration, and the work that we do to keep our law enforcement and first responders safe. We commend them for their service as we continue to work on police and community working together.

We also are grateful for those who are engaged in enhanced community relations as well as working with diverse communities.

So let me acknowledge individuals from Houston that we have lost: Assistant Deputy Chief Clint Greenwood; Officer Richard K. Martin; Harris County Sheriff's Deputy Darren Goforth.

We lost Jerry Ronald Walker of Little Elm Police Department.

Then officers who died in Dallas: Officer Brent Thompson, Sergeant Michael Smith, Senior Corporal Lorne Ahrens, Officer Patricio Zamarripa, and Officer Michael Krol.

I have had the chance to work with a number of chiefs of police, including Chief Lee P. Brown, one of the first police chiefs in Houston that I was able to work with as I began to engage publicly; Chief McClelland; now Chief Acevedo; and chiefs in-between.

I particularly thank them for working with the community during stressful times, during times when violence was evidenced out in the community; not against police, but against communities--keeping the peace, if you will, as we tried to work together.

So I support policies that are necessary, and I certainly support the idea of protecting our law enforcement. Of course, the underlying bill has that provision and indicates a protection of law enforcement officers. In actuality, it provides the opportunity for the protection as well as the utilization of the death penalty.

This particular legislation continues to want to add aggravating factors, making it 17. If we had a hearing and if we were able to determine that this would actually have an impact, there would be reason to at least have a vigorous debate over whether there is an impact or not.

But H.R. 115 is a duplicative bill and unnecessary because under 18 U.S.C. 3592(c), there already exists mechanisms that achieve the goal of punishing by death a defendant who kills a law enforcement officer or first responder.

First of all, it should be stated that the bill is based upon underlying offenses, drug offenses. There is a whole myriad of actual laws that are Federal criminal offenses, and if a death occurs under that Federal criminal offense, then you are eligible for the death penalty.

Let me cite as an example the Boston Marathon terrorists act and the killing of the MIT officer who was killed. The Federal prosecutor was able to take that case to the Federal court and to pursue a death penalty because it was pursuant to a terrorist act.

The most heinous tragedy of those who were lost in 9/11, the mourning of firefighters, first responders, and law enforcement who lost their lives, certainly there is no doubt that that was a heinous terrorist act. If those terrorists had lived--there would have been firefighters and first responders included, and their deaths would have been, in essence, tried under the Federal death penalty; and those heinous perpetrators would have been tried, given capital punishment, if the jury had convicted them--there probably was no doubt--and ultimately might have seen their end through the exercise of the death penalty.

That is, I think, clearing up that we are standing here adding any measure of difference to this particular legislation. If the act falls under Federal criminal laws, you can be, or the murderer of you can be, in fact, charged with a Federal death penalty.

On the other hand, if you go into a burning building and, unfortunately, the owner of the building--or there is some unfortunate incident and you are shot as a firefighter, you do not fall under this statute. That is not a Federal offense, but you can fall under your State death penalty cases.

Why would we be concerned about this idea of additional death penalties?

Let me cite for you the case of Buck v. Davis, where the death penalty verdict was based merely on whether the defendant is likely to commit acts of violence in the future, and a psychologist opined that being Black did increase the probability. The trial court reasoned that: ``introduction of any mention of race was de minimis.'' In other words, insignificant, completely ignoring that the largest number of individuals that go to their death are African Americans. Thank goodness for the Supreme Court and the reasoning of Chief Justice Roberts.

Justice Roberts stated for the court in reversing the lower court: ``Some toxins can be deadly in small doses.''

Likewise, in the Gregg v. Georgia case, decided after Furman, the court held that if death penalty is mandatory, such that no permission for mercy is granted, and where capital punishment is based on characteristics of the offender, then it is unconstitutional and ``arbitrary and capricious.''

The underlying bill has mandatory death penalties. It will cover first responders if they are killed pursuant to Federal crimes. We are standing here, not adding anything to the underlying bill. First responders are protected. Law enforcement are protected.

I would hate to see any of them lose their life, but under a Federal crime, their case will be tried as a death penalty case. In other instances, it will be tried by State law. We respect these heroes and sheroes. It is shameful if we use that to add another aggravating element to the death penalty, and continue to discriminate based on race.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first acknowledge and commend the law enforcement community throughout our country that work tirelessly to help protect and serve our communities.

I especially want to thank Chief Acevedo for his leadership, commitment to Houston, and for his vision on unifying communities through police relations with the people they take an oath to serve and protect.

As we celebrate police week, I would like to take a moment to thank and honor all the officers that served selflessly and died in the line of duty.

Especially, Assistant Deputy Chief Clinton Greenwood of Harris County Constable's Office-Precinct 3, TX, died on 4/3/17;

Officer Richard K. Martin of Houston Police Dept., died on 5/18/15;

Deputy Sheriff of Harris County Sheriff office, Darren Goforth, 8/28/ 15;

And Detective Jerry Ronald Walker of Little Elm Police Dept., TX, died 1/17/17 and the five officers killed in Dallas, TX on 7/7/16-- Brent Thompson, Sgt. Michael Smith, Sr. Corporal Lorne Ahrens, Officer Patrick Zamarripa, and Officer Michael Krol.

Additionally, I would like to acknowledge Houston's former Chief, Lee P. Brown who laid the strong foundation for HPD's strong community liaison practices with all communities; Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez; Alan Rosen, Harris County Constable, Precinct 1 and all of our other men and women in uniform.

I know personally the level of stress and challenges posed, because I have many friends that have and are currently serving my Congressional district in Houston and our country very well and with great distinction.

I support our policies that are necessary, so long as we are doing so with fairness, in accordance with our Constitution, and in a manner that is not duplicative of statutory measures already in place.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 imposes the death penalty for the killing or targeting of law enforcement officers, firefighters, and first responders as a 17th aggravated factor for homicide.

Although this bill is presented as a proposal to protect police officers and first responders, it does much more.

H.R. 115 is duplicative and unnecessary because under 18 U.S.C. 3592(c), there already exists mechanisms that achieve the goal of punishing by death, a defendant who kills a law enforcement officer or first responders.

Prosecutors are already armed with prosecutorial discretion to seek capital punishment in death penalty cases as demonstrated in the cases below:

U.S. v. Ronell Wilson--2 NY City detectives were killed during a gun sting operation. Defendant was sentenced to death.

U.S. v. Donzell McCauley--a Washington, DC police officer was killed and defendant received a sentence of life without parole.

U.S. v. Kenneth Wilk--a deputy sheriff was killed while attempting to serve a search warrant; defendant was sentenced to life without parole.

U.S. v. Kenneth Barrett--a state law enforcement officer was killed during a drug raid, defendant was sentenced to death.

LaShawn Casey, an undercover police officer was killed in a carjacking related to a drug transaction; a capital jury sentenced the defendant to life without the possibility of parole.

These cases illustrate that prosecutors have the discretion under the current law to seek the death penalty. By adding a 17th aggravated factor under the vague, arbitrary and capricious language of H.R. 115, we are heading down a dangerous path.

Please take note that the death toll of firefighters/first responders reported by the National Fire Protection Association illustrates a drastic decline in deaths overall, most of which were fire and accident related.

The statistics available do not support the need for this duplicative measure in H.R. 115.

This bill does nothing to protect our law enforcement or to ensure public safety; instead, it raises constitutional questions as to its validity because ``targeting law enforcement'' is substantially vague language that will subject many innocent lives to death, based purely on their desire to exercise their First Amendment rights about the well-documented racial disparity in treatment throughout our communities.

We must ensure that we do not create legislation of broad scope and vagueness that will have a chilling effect on an insular group.

H.R. 115 is laced with a discriminatory effect that will trigger strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment, and open the gateway for draconian habeas laws.

This bill will create a slippery slope, further adding to recent turbulence caused by Attorney General Jeff Session's memo and destroying whatever trust remains between law enforcement and communities.

This bill sends troubling messages around the world about how we view and measure life in America in this 21st century.

It is time to get serious about this epidemic and not hide behind vague language because `all' lives matter, blue, black, brown, white.

Mr. Speaker, while some may say that any adverse effects of the bill before us are de minimis, and thus, will not severely impact the racial disparity found in the use of the death penalty, it is neither the amount of words in this bill nor the amount of time used to utter them that is significant; rather, it is the discriminatory effect that will result in communities disproportionately impacted by the death penalty.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that we are all in support of the protection of our officers. I think that there is no competition on sympathy or wanting to appropriately assure that those who go up against our officers in a vile and violent manner would be brought to justice.

I think the point on race disparity as relates to the death penalty is relevant. It is about life. But I want to make it very clear: Under this underlying bill, our officers who are State police officers are protected already, including the example that I used about the MIT officer in the Boston Marathon terrorist act. It is if you are in the furtherance of a Federal crime. The bill itself is all Federal. You have to be engaged in an act that is a Federal crime.

Clearly, if the terrorists on 9/11 had lived, the cases of the firefighters who lost their lives certainly would have been tried-- those cases of the tragic, heinous deaths of firefighters who are our friends, and certainly are my friends--under the Federal death penalty law.

In the case of U.S. v. Kenneth Barrett, a State law enforcement officer was killed during a drug raid. That is one of the underlying offenses. The defendant was sentenced to death.

In the case of Lashaun Casey, an undercover police officer was killed in a carjacking related to a drug transaction. A capital jury decided to sentence the defendant to life without the possibility of parole, but it was a capital jury.

And so I want to honor them, too, but I also want to show the disparities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the very valuable point that Chief Justice Roberts made in the particular case of Buck v. Davis and the statistical documentation of the disparities in the death penalty cases. We cannot ignore it.

Chief Justice Roberts stated before the Court, in reversing the lower court, ``some toxins can be deadly in small doses,'' when the district court wanted to ignore or diminish the fact that race was involved in this case.

A psychologist had the audacity to say that being Black did increase the probability that you would commit an act of violence prospectively. How sad is that?

We are saddened by the death of our officers, but we are already protecting them and the first responders. Pursuant to a Federal criminal act, the prosecutor, at their discretion, can charge the defendant with a death penalty case.

I just hope my colleagues will recognize that we are not divided in our love, affection, and respect for the men and women that serve as first responders and law enforcement throughout this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act.

Mr. Speaker, law enforcement and first responders play an important role in the safety and security of our communities. I know about that because of the reason that, when I was a lawyer, I had the privilege of representing a firefighters association and a police officers association.

I have represented police officers in court, and I have been in situations where I have interfaced with them as a lawyer in other circumstances. They are an invaluable resource represented by the hard work of dedicated men and women across our Nation.

Most importantly, our admiration for police officers is not a partisan issue. We universally agree that those officers who diligently work to protect our communities warrant our praise as we honor them on this National Police Week.

They are our friends, our neighbors, our family, and they are even our colleagues. I am honored to serve in this institution with a number of persons who, in their other activities, were either police officers or police chiefs that served in that capacity in law enforcement.

We have a new Member here from my State, my good friend, Representative Val Demings, a career law enforcement officer herself-- 27 years she served--serving as Orlando's first female chief of police. I have just a footnote to add to that. Val's husband is the sheriff of Orange County.

It is because of this admiration and bipartisan support that, in some respects, I was dismayed to see that, as we celebrate National Police Week, my Republican colleagues decided now was the time to bring this, in my view, unnecessary messaging bill to the floor simply to score political points.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 would add the murder, attempted murder, or targeting of a law enforcement official, first responder, or firefighter as an aggravating factor when determining if a death sentence is warranted for a defendant convicted of murder in Federal court.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is this bill is unnecessary. It is, in short, really good messaging, but bad policy. Under current law, there is already an exhaustive list of 16 statutory aggravating factors for homicide for a jury or court to consider.

Having been involved in the justice system for a protracted time in my career, I am trying to think of a time that a police officer was killed and a person was tried and convicted; and I ask my colleagues to answer that question, that anybody that was convicted for killing a police officer didn't get the death penalty. I know in my State, in every instance that that occurred--and they were too numerous, and I regret that they occurred at all--all of those people got the death penalty.

We also remember that Federal prosecutors can and do seek the death penalty in the killing of law enforcement or first responders, as our friends from Massachusetts are well aware after a death sentence was handed down in the case involving the Boston Marathon bomber. And that was in Massachusetts, a nondeath penalty State.

Mr. Speaker, on this front, the system is working. Federal prosecutors already have the tools to seek the death penalty in cases where a first responder or law enforcement official was murdered. What's more, they are using these tools.

Given this duplicity, it is a shame that we are here today debating the need for a seventeenth new aggravating factor to keep members of the law enforcement community safe when we could be considering measures that would actually keep them and their communities they protect far safer.

Let's be clear. This legislation does nothing to keep law enforcement officers and first responders safe. By its own purported purpose, this bill addresses the tragic scenario in which the officer has already been killed. We need to be working together to create legislation that has a real impact on keeping our communities and police safer, as opposed to slapping a catchy name on an unnecessary bill and pretend we are doing something.

If my Republican colleagues were serious about advancing protections for law enforcement during National Police Week, we would be discussing providing them with the tools, the resources, and the training to engage in beneficial community policing initiatives. Our law enforcement officers and the communities they police deserve more than messaging. They deserve real action.

I ask one more question. Ask police officers what their attitude is about assault weapons. I think you would find that, if we passed an assault weapons measure, we would be pleasing police officers a great deal more than messaging to them our concern for their safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and then I will yield to a speaker to speak for the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, it may sound like we are getting ready to change the subject; and, to a relative degree, we are.

We are in very interesting and troubling times in this Nation, and we have some concerns that need to be addressed. One of the things that is allowed to the minority is an opportunity to present a previous question.

In this particular instance, we are deeply concerned by last night's revelations that, earlier this year, President Trump may have attempted to obstruct justice when he asked then-FBI Director James Comey to end the Bureau's investigation of former National Security Advisor Flynn's ties to Russia. This news came only days after the President acknowledged that he later fired Director Comey over the Bureau's investigation into the links between the Trump campaign and Russia, and only a day after we learned the President shared highly classified intelligence with Russian officials last week.

I served for 8 years on the Intelligence Committee in this Congress, and the kind of information that the President shared with the Russians--even as an Intelligence member, I saw secret, I saw top secret, I saw high secret, but I did not see code word information, the highest that is only shared with a few people in the congressional body--that is what was allowed to be transmitted.

It is time that the Republican-controlled Congress does its job and acts to defend our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bipartisan bill, H.R. 356, which would create a nonpartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in our 2016 election. This marks the seventh time we tried to bring this bill to the House floor. On the previous six occasions, the Republican majority regrettably refused the House to even debate this important legislation.

As more and more facts have come to light, I hope my colleagues will finally put country ahead of party and get serious about this investigation. My goodness, the allegation here is that people impacted our fundamental premise of our existence: our elections. We need to create this commission with legislation rather than just tweeting about the need for facts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, (Mr. Swalwell), a member of the Intelligence Committee of the House, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard that often. Will the Speaker direct me to what I said that was anything more than what is a fact here. Can the Chair tell me what I said that was dealing with the personality of the President.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be so kind as to advise my good friend and I what amount of time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend that I anticipate one more speaker, but at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I am sure that my friends across the aisle have their hearts in the right place, but we need to be clear that these messaging bills do little to nothing to protect our police officers.

If we truly wanted to help our brave officers and first responders, we would pass sensible gun reform legislation. We would take guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and domestic abusers; not make it easier for them to acquire such weapons as my friends across the aisle have done on so many occasions.

If we truly wanted to protect our officers and first responders, we would work diligently to provide them with the best mental health and wellness programs money can buy rather than leaving them to mend unseen wounds on their own.

If my friends across the aisle truly wanted to help this country's law enforcement officers, they would champion funding for community policing initiatives because I think we all know that a community that trusts its police officers, and police officers who trust their community, will live a far safer and richer life.

I might add, my colleague Debbie Wasserman Schultz and I, along with law enforcement officials in south Florida, have been about the business of trying to make that a reality, and funding for those programs is particularly important to all of our communities.

Mr. Speaker, we all applaud and thank our law enforcement officers and first responders for the brave and invaluable work that they do, day in and day out, in our communities.

But we cannot bury our heads in the sand any longer and believe that, by simply passing messaging bills, we are actually making our communities safer for our officers or the citizens for whom they swear an oath to protect.

We have heard outstanding comments from our friends and our colleagues who came to speak today. All of them spoke of heartfelt circumstances regarding fallen officers.

And toward that end, there is absolutely nothing that I disagree with that has been said.

I just simply ask that we take into consideration how we can best help and keep safe law enforcement officers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, though troubled and saddened by the recent attacks on law enforcement officials, I believe that H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, is counterproductive to ensuring public safety and only serves to exacerbate concerns with the unfair and unjust death penalty.

H.R. 115 expands the list of statutory aggravating factors in Federal death penalty cases to also include killing or targeting a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or other first responder.

Aggravating factors are specific factors that judges and juries consider in determining whether a sentence of death is justified for the underlying offense. Passage of this bill would add a 17th statutory aggravating factor for Federal death penalty eligible offenses.

H.R. 115 has been rushed to the House floor, without a single hearing and without the opportunity to consider amendments directly relevant to whether our system of imposing the death penalty is fair, just, and reliable. Like most of my colleagues, I support measures that would actually protect our first responders, brave men and women who risk their lives every day to protect us.

Unfortunately, H.R. 115 not only fails to do this but would also exacerbate problems with the Federal death penalty.

First, H.R. 115 duplicates Federal and State laws that enhance sentences of persons convicted of crimes of violence against law enforcement. The very law the bill seeks to amend, 18 U.S.C. section 3592, already states that a crime against a high public official, including a judge, a law enforcement officer, or an employee of a United States penal or correctional institution, is an aggravating factor that may be considered in determining whether a death sentence should be imposed.

Other Federal laws also impose a life sentence or death on persons convicted of killing State and local law enforcement officers, or other employees assisting with Federal investigations, as well as officers of the United States courts.

Secondly, H.R. 115 does not address documented and systemic unfairness and racial unfairness in the disposition of the death penalty. Any legislation dealing with the Federal death penalty must also address numerous concerns related to racial disparity in application of capital punishment, the lack of qualified counsel and sufficient resources to represent those facing the death penalty, and faulty forensic ``science'' testimony ordered in support of convictions in death penalty cases.

The Federal death penalty, in particular, is rife with troubling evidence of racial disparity. For example, 36 of the 61 people currently on Federal death row are African American, Latino, Asian, or Native American.

If you break this down by Federal circuit, the results are even more disturbing. For example, 15 of 18 men who have received a Federal death sentence in the Fifth Circuit--Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi--in the modern era have been people of color.

Third, civil rights and civil liberties organizations oppose H.R. 115. Organizations committed to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties, including the NAACP, ACLU, and the LCCR, have noted that the Thin Blue Line Act ``is an unnecessary and misguided attempt to politicize the unfortunate deaths of law enforcement officers and could ultimately exacerbate existing tension between law enforcement and the communities they served.''

And finally, H.R. 115 will not deter violence against police officers. By adding a 17th aggravating factor to the Federal death penalty statute, this legislation ignores scientific research regarding the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to crime.

It is important to note that the National Research Council of the National Academies has concluded that the studies claiming that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on murder rates are ``fundamentally flawed'' and should not be the basis of sound public policy.

Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter addressed to Mr. Goodlatte and myself, and I want to read the first paragraph of it.

``Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers:

``We are current and former law enforcement leaders and officers from jurisdictions across the country. We ask you to oppose H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act. We do so because we believe this bill will do little to protect the lives of police and first responders and will drive away resources proven to be effective at protecting law enforcement and preventing and solving crime.''

April 26, 2017.

Re Law Enforcement Opposition to H.R. 115.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: We are

current and former law enforcement leaders and officers from

jurisdictions across the country. We ask you to oppose H.R.

115, the Thin Blue Line Act. We

do so because we believe this bill will do little to protect

the lives of police and first responders and will drive away

resources proven to be effective at protecting law

enforcement and preventing and solving crime.

We are all too familiar with the risks that local, state,

and federal law enforcement and first responders take each

day to prevent, investigate, and prosecute crime. In fact;

some of us have served alongside colleagues who were killed

in the line of duty. We understand the impulse to threaten

those who have murdered our fellow officers with the death

penalty, and some of us have experienced that desire

directly.

But we also know that the death penalty, as it currently

operates, is poor public policy. It is ineffective,

expensive, and can make irrevocable mistakes. It is also used

disparately and often on vulnerable populations, which

undermines our ability to create effective and trusted

relationships with those in the community on whose support

our success depends. That is why, while some of us may

philosophically support the death penalty, we all oppose its

expansion in practice--even under the auspices of supporting

law enforcement.

Each of us understands that it takes many and varied

resources to keep our communities safe. We need strong

partnerships with local government and the communities we

serve. We need well-functioning and modern systems to

collect, store and process police activities, crime data, and

evidence. We need equipment to protect and assist officers as

they perform their duties. One tool virtually never seen on

our list of needs is the death penalty.

In short, we believe H.R. 115 is an unnecessary expansion

of an already flawed and ineffective policy. We encourage you

to oppose this bill and instead support measures that promote

the overall health, safety, and welfare of law enforcement

and the communities we have been sworn to protect.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

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

(1997-Present).

John Breckenridge, Officer, Manchester (NH) Police

Department (ret.).

James Davidsaver, Emergency Management Director, Lancaster

County, Nebraska; former captain, Lincoln (NE) Police

Department.

Neill Franklin, Baltimore Police Department (2000-2010);

Maryland State Police (1976-1999).

Gerald Galloway, Chief, Southern Pines (NC) Police

Department (1988-2005); Past President, North Carolina Chiefs

of Police Association; former Executive Committee member,

Mr. Speaker, I would like all of my colleagues to recognize that, during our observation of National Police Week, we are reminded again of the importance of ensuring that law enforcement officers are safe so they can carry out their duties effectively.

These kinds of ``enhancement'' bills like H.R. 115 do nothing to invest in officer wellness or to address the everyday challenges faced by police officers or first responders. Moreover, they are redundant, especially because there are laws that protect police officers and first responders from violence in all 50 States.

Rather than advancing a bill that amounts to an empty gesture, that is damaging, at best, this Congress should focus on real reform measures that will protect law enforcement, first responders, and their communities. Providing duplicative protections to law enforcement simply cannot counterbalance the impact of fundamentally flawed death penalty legislation.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 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 323 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

As a former Federal and State prosecutor, I often hear how Americans value and respect our law enforcement officers, firefighters, and first responders. We talk about their heroism, their selflessness, their willingness to protect and serve no matter the cost.

These fearless individuals truly are the fabric that holds our communities together. However, in recent years, a violent and disturbing trend has developed. Law enforcement officers, firefighters, and first responders are increasingly being targeted for violence and cruelty based solely on the uniform they wear.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, there were 64 police shooting deaths in 2016. That number is 56 percent higher than the previous year. The National Association of Police Organizations also notes that ambush-style killings of law enforcement officers increased by 167 percent in 2016.

Allowing this appalling trend to continue unchecked is not only unacceptable, it is indefensible. Congress must take concrete steps to address this deadly problem.

Current Federal law provides 16 aggravating factors that a jury must consider when deciding whether a death sentence is warranted. These factors include whether the defendant acted in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner; whether the defendant engaged in substantial planning and premeditation; whether the victim was

particularly vulnerable; whether the victim was a high public official, which includes high-ranking public persons, from the President to a foreign head of state, to a judge or a Federal law enforcement officer. However, State and local police officers, firefighters, prosecutors, and first responders are excluded from these protections.

In response, my friend, Mr. Buchanan, introduced H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act. This legislation amends Federal law to include murdering, attempting to murder, or targeting of State and local law enforcement officers, firefighters, prosecutors, and first responders as an aggravating factor a jury must consider when determining whether a death sentence is justified. Furthermore, these protections extend to all public safety officers who are murdered or targeted while engaging in their official duties, because of the performance of their duties, or because of their status as a public official or employee.

This bill sends a clear message: Those who target our police officers, firefighters, or first responders with violence will be met with an equally harsh punishment.

We offer our thoughts and prayers to the families of our fallen officers, but we must do more to protect these brave individuals. We can't stand idly by as the individuals who protect our homes and communities are targeted because of the uniform they wear. We must act to ensure those individuals who would commit an act of violence against our public safety officers know they will face the gravest of sentences if they go through with their heinous plot.

We must send the message that Congress stands with those fearless individuals who dedicate their lives to protecting our communities, no matter the cost. We can't continue allowing them to suffer the price of our inaction. I support this effort and thank Chairman Goodlatte and the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing this bill to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here because we are making sure that local police officers, sheriff's deputies, prosecutors, first responders, and firefighters have the same protections that those in the Federal system have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight) to get this debate

back on track and to protect local law enforcement officials.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), a former special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record four letters which I will briefly describe:

The first is from the Major County Sheriffs of America, supporting the Thin Blue Line Act; the second is from the National Association of Police Organizations, Inc., again, supporting the Thin Blue Line Act; the third is from the National Fraternal Order of Police, supporting H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act; and then finally, from the Sergeants Benevolent Association in strong support of H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act.

Major County Sheriffs

of America,

April 25, 2017.

Hon. Vern Buchanan,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Buchanan: I write to you today on a matter

of significant importance to the Major County Sheriffs of

America (MCSA) and all of America's law enforcement

professionals. MCSA is an association of elected Sheriffs

representing the Nation's largest counties with populations

of 500,000 or more. Collectively, we represent more than 100

million Americans.

As Vice President in charge of Government Affairs for the

MCSA, I am pleased to express our association's support of

your legislation, the Thin Blue Line Act. This legislation

would make the murder of law enforcement officers,

firefighters and other first responders an aggravating factor

in capital punishment determinations.

In 2016, one hundred forty-four officers died in the line

of duty and to date, line of duty deaths are up 10 percent.

The targeting of law enforcement officers is unconscionable

and those who commit such heinous acts should be prosecuted

to the fullest extent of the law. Law enforcement officers

and other first responders have the right to go home to their

families at the end of their shifts.

The Thin Blue Line Act is a step in the right direction and

your work on this legislation is sincerely appreciated. We

value your support and look forward to working with you in

the future.

Michael J. Bouchard,

Sheriff, Oakland County (MI),

Vice President--Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before the House today is simple. It provides for the consideration of the Thin Blue Line Act. We often talk of how resolute our law enforcement officers, firefighters, and first responders are in the face of immense danger. These heroic individuals charge into burning buildings, face down violence, and stand ready to jump into the fray at a moment's notice.

Simply putting on a uniform should not be one of those dangers. It is our duty to ensure that law enforcement officers, firefighters, and first responders have every tool at their disposal to do their job safely and effectively and to ensure they return home to their families.

Countless spouses and children kiss their loved ones good-bye as they head to work, praying that it will not be their last day. We must never forget this as we work to ensure our police officers, firefighters, and first responders have every possible protection.

There is no greater deterrent than the threat of losing one's life. It is my hope that this legislation makes individuals who would consider taking the life of an officer stop to consider the consequences before going through with an attack; that we one day reach a point where our Nation's finest can go to work without worrying about being targeted because of the uniform on their back; that one day our officers' families have one less reason to worry.

But until that day, we must continue standing resolutely against this evil. I ask my colleagues in the House to support our law enforcement community, firefighters, and first responders. Protect them from the heinous acts of violence. Give their families some assurance that we have their backs. Vote ``yes'' on the resolution, vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill, vote ``yes'' to give our law enforcement officers the protections they so desperately need.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Sessions for bringing this bill before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just briefly remind my colleague on the other side that this does not establish the death penalty for an attempted murder, as was just stated. There must be an underlying capital crime for which the defendant is convicted. That is what this bill does, and nothing more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I would just rise, once again, to correct my colleague. It is an aggravating factor that is to be considered by a jury as one of many factors postconviction.

So what you are saying is not 100 percent accurate. We can engage in semantics, but we will agree to disagree on that point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to correct my colleague. I guess we can do this all day, but I do actually have a copy of the criminal code in front of me, and I would refer him to 18 U.S.C. section 3591(b)(2), where it lists very specifically and expressly that attempts to kill are listed in the sentence of death.

I refer you to that provision, and it is not mandatory. The jury can determine whether the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, or in the absence of any mitigating factors, whether the aggravating factors alone justify a death sentence.

So I feel that we are engaging in an exercise of semantics, but it is important that we don't misportray what this bill would accomplish and what it would do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

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

There are two important very brief points for correction. I respect the gentlewoman from Texas, but she just suggested to us that this would be a duplicative law; thus, unnecessary because, as she cited the Federal criminal code, she says that law enforcement officers are already covered by the law.

However, I would refer her attention to 18 U.S.C. Section 3592(c)(14), and then subsection (d), where it clearly says in a capital letter, ``a Federal law enforcement officer.''

So it is important to note that the existing Federal law does not cover State and local officers, which this bill would and, thereby, is one of the things that necessitates this action.

Also, I want to point out, respectfully, that that same criminal code--just one-page later in section 3593, also in title 18, subsection (f)--says: ``Special Precaution to Ensure Against Discrimination.''

We know that Federal law already provides that a jury must specifically find that a defendant's race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or that of the victim, is not a factor in their decision.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to speak on the floor today not only in support of H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, but also in honor of all of our brave men and women who put their lives on the line every single day to keep our communities safe.

I am the son of a first responder myself. My father was critically injured and permanently disabled in the line of duty. I know these sacrifices very well.

This country owes our law enforcement officers an extraordinary debt of gratitude for the many services they provide. Our Nation simply would not be what it is today were it not for the sacrifices of all those who take the oath to protect and to serve us.

The Thin Blue Line Act is simple: It seeks to expand on certain penalties to also include the murder or targeting of a State or local law enforcement officer.

Virtually every American--anyone of good conscience--is shocked and disgusted by the recent trend of our local law enforcement heroes being targeted for violent acts.

I am sad to report that, in my home State of Louisiana, we have been named the most dangerous State in America for law enforcement officers. It is shocking. It is true. It saddens all of us. The Thin Blue Line Act is a commonsense response to this epidemic that we are seeing across the culture.

We thank and we stand with our first responders back home in Louisiana and all across our Nation. Those dedicated public servants never question and never hesitate in the face of danger. As many people have analogized this, we consider them our sheepdogs. They protect our communities from the wolves of our society who prey upon the innocent.

To honor those sacrifices, I am proud, today, to support this legislation on the House floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many arguments from the other side of the aisle in opposition to this legislation. Of course, they began by saying how much they support the men and women of law enforcement. But let's consider these arguments and decide for ourselves in closing here.

First, we heard that the legislation is duplicative. It is not. In fact, it closes a loophole that currently exists in Federal law. There is currently no provision in our Federal law stating that the killing of a State or local law enforcement officer shall be an aggravating factor for capital punishment.

Next, we heard that this legislation is unnecessary. It is not, unless you believe that State and local law enforcement officers are not somehow entitled to the same legal protections currently enjoyed by Federal officers. That is what this legislation would correct.

A third argument we heard is that this is a messaging bill. It is clearly not that. Though it may be true that this provision would apply in a limited number of cases because the vast majority of capital cases are prosecuted at the State level, this bill inserts a provision in Federal law that will be vitally important in the cases where it would be applicable, such as in the Boston bombing.

On that point, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have noted that Federal law already contains provisions to ensure criminals who carry out heinous acts such as the Boston terrorism attacks are dealt with appropriately. That is, of course, true, but saying that ignores the suffering of families of fallen police officers who have lost their lives rushing to aid after such an attack.

It also ignores the sacrifice of law enforcement officers themselves, for example. Officer Sean Collier of the MIT Police Department is one example. He was murdered by the Tsarnaev brothers during their flight following their horrific act.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, what these arguments reveal is simply that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose this bill because it amends a Federal death penalty statute.

We would point out, in response to the letter that was just entered into the Record, that we have received support letters that are already in the Record from numerous law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association of the NYPD, among many, many others across the country who believe that this is an appropriate step for us to take today.

In light of all that, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the arguments of the other side, to support the men and women who comprise the thin blue line between order and chaos in our society, and to support this bill.

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