[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4237-H4245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 115, THIN BLUE LINE ACT
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 323 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 323
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 115) to
amend title 18, United States Code, to provide additional
aggravating factors for the imposition of the death penalty
based on the status of the victim. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-17 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. 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. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. 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
[[Page H4238]]
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. HASTINGS. 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.
{time} 1245
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. BUCK. 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. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, law enforcement officers across this
country go to work every day to serve and protect our communities.
These brave men and women risk everything to keep our communities and
our families safe and secure, and they do it selflessly.
I recently attended a ceremony in Putnam County, Indiana, honoring
the service and sacrifice of the Indiana State Police officers who have
given their lives in the line of duty. Yesterday I was at the White
House with Vice President Pence to recognize the dedication of the
Indiana Fraternal Order of Police and to remember the service of the
late sheriff's deputy of Howard County, Carl Koontz, who was killed in
the line of duty.
Events like these are somber reminders of what these heroes who stand
on the thin blue line, and their families, sacrifice on our behalf. We
should all be grateful.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation ensures that officers who fall in the
line of duty, and their families, receive the justice they deserve. I
urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation that confirms the
United States Congress stands behind our law enforcement.
[[Page H4239]]
Mr. HASTINGS. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before recognizing the gentleman from
California, Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in
personalities toward the President.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. HASTINGS. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may have, perhaps not in
words, but perhaps gave some indication of illegal activities by the
President.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for yielding.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and allow an
amendment to come forward so that we can debate having an independent
commission on Russia's interference in our past election.
The events over the past few weeks have demonstrated that there is a
high cost--a cost that is too high to bear with regard to the White
House and its ties with Russia.
What is the cost exactly?
What is the cost of alleged abuses and the President's firing of
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and Director James Comey?
What is the cost of the question swirling around the President's ties
to Russia?
Well, the cost, clearly, with the leaking that occurred in the Oval
Office, is now our national security.
The cost is our democracy has been left in ruins. It is a mess right
now here in Washington.
The cost is that this House is unable to bring forward legislation to
do anything to help people put food on the table, to seek to put a roof
over their home, and to provide opportunity to their children.
It is a high cost that we are paying right now for all these
questions. It is too much for us to bear.
The best thing we can do is to charter an independent commission to
take this outside of Congress so that they can follow the facts and the
evidence and report back to the American people just exactly how we
were so vulnerable this last election.
What was our response?
Were any U.S. persons involved?
And, most importantly, what are we going to do?
What reforms can we make?
What awareness should we all have so that we never find ourselves in
a mess like this again?
It is not disputed, Russia attacked our democracy. It was ordered by
Vladimir Putin. They used a multifaceted campaign of social media
trolls, the dissemination of fake news, the hacking of Democratic
emails, and the breaking into State voter registration systems. They
had a preferred candidate in mind in Donald Trump. And they didn't do
it because they were bored. They didn't do it because they were testing
software. They did it because they wanted something in return. They saw
a candidate who admired their President, they wanted sanctions rolled
back, and they wanted to reduce the role of NATO.
But the most disturbing and the most bone-chilling finding that the
intelligence community made was that Russia intends to do it again. And
by the looks of things, they will be more successful next time because,
since this past attack, we have done nothing to improve the structural
integrity of our elections. We have done nothing to have a frank
conversation with the American people about how we all need to be more
aware about what a foreign adversary's intent is when they hack emails
and then disseminate fake news.
This is a time for Republicans and Democrats to unite. Democrats may
have been the victim of this most recent attack. If history has its
way, another adversary perhaps could attack us and Republicans may be
the victim.
{time} 1300
But the constant should always be that both parties say we will never
tolerate foreign interference. The first step to doing that is to
defeat this previous question, allow an amendment to take place so we
can debate having an independent commission, a commission that would be
bipartisan appointed, have a wide mandate to follow the evidence,
explore all the facts, and then report to the American people
recommendations so that this never happens again. We have a discharge
petition right now to also do that. There are a number of names on it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. I saw how our country responded after the
last serious attack that occurred on September 11. Outside, on the
Capitol steps, Republicans and Democrats joined hands. They sang ``God
Bless America.'' But more importantly were the reforms that they
undertook over the next few years to understand the vulnerability, to
put policies in place to make sure we were never vulnerable again, and
report to the American people what they had done.
We have an opportunity again to unite. Our constituents are counting
on us to show that unity, to wear the same uniform, and make sure that
this democracy is still one we protect.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Knight) to get this debate
[[Page H4240]]
back on track and to protect local law enforcement officials.
Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I come to you, not just as a Representative
from my district today but someone who served for 18 years as a Los
Angeles police officer on the streets, someone who has been in uniform,
at attention, at several police officer and deputy funerals as tears
were rolling down my face, and looking side to side and seeing the same
of my brothers and sisters in law enforcement.
I am sure that everyone who speaks today will have a story, a
horrible story that affected their community. On October 5 of last
year, one such story happened in our community. Sergeant Steve Owen was
basically executed. He was shot from a far distance, and then the
killer came up and put four more shots into him at close range to make
sure that he was dead.
These are the types of things that we are seeing in our communities
across this country at an alarmingly high rate over the last few years.
I think that the Thin Blue Line Act is one more of those types of
issues that we can do to protect our first responders, our police
officers, our firefighters, to give these people justice, to give their
families justice, so I urge you to support the Thin Blue Line Act.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be so kind as to advise my
good friend and I what amount of time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 14\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 24\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. 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. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Roe), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
rule to consider H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, introduced by my
friend and colleague from Florida, Mr. Vern Buchanan.
Mr. Speaker, this week, National Police Week, we take time to honor
our Nation's law enforcement officers for the work they do and the
sacrifices they make to keep us safe on a daily basis. It is
unconscionable that law enforcement officers are being targeted and are
making the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty; and this bill aims
to make the killing or attempted killing of a law enforcement officer
an aggravating factor for the imposition of the death penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I served for 6 years as a city commissioner and two of
those as the mayor of my small town of Johnson City, Tennessee, and had
the privilege of working with first responders, firemen, and police
officers every day. It was a privilege to do it. I put on a scrub suit
to go to work. They put on a Kevlar vest and put their lives in danger.
I cannot say thank you enough to them and their families for the
sacrifices that they make.
I commend my colleague on introducing this legislation and for the
House considering it today. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation in honor of our law enforcement officers.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 115, the
Thin Blue Line Act, which will act as a deterrent against criminals who
seek to harm first responders. Increasing the Federal penalties that
can be imposed against those who would kill or attempt to kill
policemen, firemen, or first responders is a just response to such
heinous crimes.
This week is National Police Week, and I am reminded of the words
etched on the National Law Enforcement Memorial in Washington, D.C.,
which states: ``The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous
are bold as a lion.'' This is from the Book of Proverbs.
It takes a special kind of person to willingly run toward danger and
to shield the innocent from the wicked. That is what our law
enforcement and first responders do every day.
I am very grateful for the men and women who serve and protect our
communities; and I was honored to be present for Police Week in a small
town in our district, Green Cove Springs, in Clay County, Florida,
where they had the Police Memorial; and on that was a verse from John
15:13: ``Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for
one's friends.''
I hope that God watches over our first responders and keeps them safe
to bring them home to their families.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Brooks).
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, as a former Tuscaloosa County
prosecutor and Madison County district attorney, I fully understand the
importance of the rule of law that, in turn, protects us from anarchy,
crime, destruction, and death. Without the rule of law, criminal brute
force prevails.
Unfortunately, leftist political forces who care more about inciting
racial division for political gain and less about crime and terror
victims regularly second-guess those who wear the uniform to protect
and serve.
For emphasis, antipolice, leftist political rhetoric has helped
incite ambush-style attacks against police in places like Dallas, Baton
Rouge, Des Moines, and Palm Springs.
I support the Thin Blue Line Act because I appreciate the sacrifice
of law enforcement officers, and because it is morally right to help
protect officers who risk their lives to protect ours.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Bilirakis).
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with our law
enforcement officers and in support of the rule and passage of the Thin
Blue Line Act. This bill makes sure that anyone who targets and attacks
a State or local law enforcement officer is held accountable.
The men and women who serve in our local police forces put their
lives on the line to keep us safe. They are our everyday heroes, Mr.
Speaker.
In 2014, Tarpon Springs Police Officer Charles Kondek was shot and
killed by a fugitive while on duty. Officer Kondek represented Tarpon
Springs. He worked there for 17 years and did a wonderful job keeping
us safe.
These ambush-style killings of law enforcement officers have
increased across the country by 167 percent. This is unacceptable.
The Thin Blue Line Act brings us one step closer to justice for these
horrific crimes, so let's pass this bill. Of course, we have to pass
the rule first so that we can pass this good bill.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Dunn).
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Thin Blue Line
Act, which will make murder or attempted murder of a law enforcement
officer, or first responders, an aggravating factor in death penalty
determinations.
The officers of the thin blue line put their lives at risk every day
and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice so that we can rest easy
at night. Our law enforcement and first responders run into danger so
that others can run away from it. They do this despite the rise in
violence against them.
We have witnessed a 167 percent increase in ambush-style killings of
police officers in 2016 alone. This is tragic, and it is unacceptable.
The Thin Blue Line Act will hold cop killers accountable and seek
justice for those murdered in the line of duty, and it will show our
resolve as citizens to protect the officers who have sworn to protect
us.
During this week, National Police Week, we can also show our
gratitude to law enforcement and their families by passing the Thin
Blue Line Act. It is an honor to represent them in Congress.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, at this time in our Nation, protecting our
local law
[[Page H4241]]
enforcement and first responders could not be more important. Tens of
thousands of law enforcement and first responders around the country
put their lives on the line every single day to serve their
communities. Sadly, statistics show that simply doing their jobs has
become very dangerous for these individuals.
In 2016, police officer shootings increased by 56 percent nationally,
with ambush-style killings of law enforcement officers increasing by a
staggering 167 percent. These dramatic numbers demonstrate that more
protection is needed for our law enforcement officers.
In my home State of Texas, 17 law enforcement officers gave their
lives just last year, including five who were killed in the horrible
assault that targeted police officers in Dallas, Texas. On Monday, in
recognition of National Police Week, we honored fallen law enforcement
officers at a memorial ceremony in Deer Park, Texas, in my district.
We need the Thin Blue Line Act, which would make the killing of a
local or State law enforcement officer or first responder an
aggravating factor in Federal death penalty determinations. It is
important that our local and State police officers and first responders
have the same safeguards that Federal law enforcement officers already
have.
The local law enforcement and first responders that I know in my
district not only serve their communities through their jobs but also
give back to their communities in positions such as Little League
coaches, City Council members, Sunday-school teachers, and in countless
other positions of service. These individuals put their communities
first, Mr. Speaker, and they deserve to be protected by much stronger
laws.
I rise in strong support of the Thin Blue Line Act and encourage my
colleagues in the House to support its passage today.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), a former special agent with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr.
Buck, for his leadership on this important issue, and I rise in strong
support.
Mr. Speaker, my great-uncle, Phil Fitzpatrick, was a proud patrolman
with the NYPD. He was also a poet, often referring to police officers
as soldiers of peace. This week, as we recognize Police Week 2017, I
find myself thinking of him and a line from one of his poems, where he
wrote: ``When he kisses his wife and children goodbye, there's the
chance he will see them no more.''
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, these words were true for my family. This
month marks 70 years since my great-uncle was shot while attempting to
disarm a robber in a Manhattan bar, a fatal injury he succumbed to days
later.
Mr. Speaker, for too long, law enforcement across this country has
been forgotten or, worse yet, ostracized. At the same time, their vital
mission continues, and it continues to grow more dangerous. Just last
year, ambush-style killings of law enforcement officers increased by
167 percent, according to the National Association of Police
Organizations. Despite all this, each day, tens of thousands of brave
women and men continue to put their lives on the line to serve and
protect our communities.
This week, we recognize Police Week 2017, but the dedication and
sacrifice of our blue line deserves to be respected every day. As a
former law enforcement officer, I am proud to stand here today in
support of those brave women and men.
Today, the House has a chance to take decisive action to protect our
law enforcement officers by passing the legislation before us. The Thin
Blue Line Act sends a clear message to those who intentionally target
our police officers. Vicious attacks on law enforcement officers will
be met with justice.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for law enforcement today, support
this rule, and pass H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act. The bipartisan
support it deserves must be delivered today.
{time} 1315
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for his efforts and leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I think it is really important that
we talk about law enforcement; we talk about what their role is. These
are the peacekeepers. The men and women right here on Capitol Hill, the
Capitol Police, they are the ones who prevent chaos, that allow for
order to stand here in the Capitol complex.
In the State of Louisiana, in my hometown of Baton Rouge, back on
July 17, we had an extraordinary event. We had five of our law
enforcement officers who were responding to a shooter with a long gun;
clearly, someone that was dressed and armed in a way to not be helpful
to the community. While the rest of us were running away from that
shooter, these five men were running toward him.
As a result of that, Deputy Brad Garafola lost his life, and his
wife, Tonja, is right now a widow.
Matthew Gerald lost his life, and Dechia, his wife, is now a widow.
Dechia found out 2 weeks after his death that she was pregnant, and he
has never seen that baby. That baby doesn't have a father today.
We had Montrell Jackson, another Baton Rouge police officer, who lost
his life, and his wife, Trenisha, is now a widow.
We had Bruce Simmons who got shot, and while he did survive, he is
still struggling with recovery, and he and his wife, Pam, continue to
go through that from the July 17 shooting from last year.
Nick Tullier was also involved in that shooting, and I have been
wearing my ``Pray for Nick'' band now for months. Nick Tullier
continues to be in the hospital even today.
This bill allows for the protection of our officers. It clearly
distinguishes that these are the peacekeepers, these are the people who
are putting their lives on the line to make sure that we have order, no
longer chaos.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I urge
everyone to support this unanimously.
Mr. HASTINGS. 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.
[[Page H4242]]
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. BUCK. 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.
____
National Association of
Police Organizations, Inc.,
Alexandria, VA, January 5, 2017.
Hon. Vern Buchanan,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Buchanan: On behalf of the National
Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), I am writing to
you to express our strong support for the Thin Blue Line Act.
NAPO is a coalition of police units and associations from
across the United States that serves to advance the interests
of America's law enforcement through legislative and legal
advocacy, political action, and education. Founded in 1978,
NAPO now represents more than 1,000 police units and
associations, including the Florida Police Benevolent
Association, 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers, and more
than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair
and effective crime control and law enforcement.
The Thin Blue Line Act increases penalties on those who
harm or target for harm public safety officers by making the
murder or attempted murder of a local police officer,
firefighter, or first responder an aggravating factor in
death penalty determinations.
This bill is critical, as law enforcement officer assaults,
injuries, and deaths have increased sharply in recent years.
In 2016 alone, ambush-style killings of law enforcement
officers increased by 167 percent. Establishing stricter
penalties for those who harm or target for harm law
enforcement officers will deter crime. Any persons
contemplating harming an office must know that they will face
serious punishments. NAPO strongly believes that increased
penalties make important differences in the attitudes of
criminals toward public safety officers, and ensure
protection for the community.
We thank you for your continued support of the law
enforcement community and we look forward to working with you
to pass this important legislation. If we can provide any
assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
William J. Johnson,
Esq., CAE, Executive Director.
____
National Fraternal
Order of Police,
Washington, DC, January 9, 2017.
Hon. Vernon G. Buchanan,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Buchanan: I am writing on behalf of the
members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our
strong support for H.R. 115, the ``Thin Blue Line Act.''
The ``Thin Blue Line Act'' increases the penalty for an
individual who targets, kills, or attempts to kill a person
who is a law enforcement officer, firefighter or any other
public safety officer, while he or she was engaged in the
performance of his or her official duties, because of the
performance of his or her official duties, or because of his
or her status as a public official or employee.
Law enforcement officers have always faced threats while on
duty but within the past few years, officers have become a
target for violence solely because of the uniform they wear.
As you know, the FOP has called upon Congress to expand the
current Federal hate crimes law to include law enforcement
officers for this very reason.
Of the 63 deaths by gunfire suffered by law enforcement in
2016, 21 of them--that's 33%--were ambush killings. These
were deliberate and sadly successful efforts by individuals
who set out to kill a police officer:
The ambush attack against the Dallas Police Department; the
deadliest day for law enforcement since 9/11 that saw 5
officers killed from gunfire;
The ambush attack against members of the Baton Rouge Police
Department that saw 3 officers killed from gunfire;
The ambush attack against 2 Iowa police officers, Scott
Martin and Anthony Beminio who were killed as they sat in
their respective patrol cars;
Officer Thomas Cottrell of the Danville Police Department
(OH) was killed by ambush.
All of these officers died because of the uniforms they
were wearing. Those in our profession have always been in
harm's way. It is our job to protect others but it should not
be ``part of the job'' to be a target of someone who is
looking simply to kill a cop. We do not accept that our
uniforms alone make us targets because someone was driven to
rage over a perceived injustice or desires to strike a blow
against our civil government.
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 any further help,
please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director
Jim Pasco in my Washington office.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.
____
Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police Department, City
of New York,
New York, NY, January 17, 2017.
Hon. Vern Buchanan,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Buchanan: I am writing on behalf of the
more than 13,000 members of the Sergeants Benevolent
Association of the New York City Police Department to advise
you of our strong support for H.R. 115, the ``Thin Blue Line
Act.''
For too long, members of the NYPD, along with law
enforcement officers across this nation, have been targets.
There has been a proliferation of groups and pundits
impugning the motives and mission of law enforcement. They do
so with no regard for the impact it has on our ability to
protect life, property, and the freedoms we all hold dear.
These constant attacks and the excessive, exaggerated
rhetoric of anti-police elements have led some to declare an
open season on police officers, and to welcome with cheers
and praise the cowardly criminals who target law enforcement
officers with acts of violence. We saw this first hand in New
York City in December 2014, when Officers Wenjian Liu and
Rafael Ramos were ambushed and senselessly murdered as they
sat in their radio car on a Brooklyn street corner.
Unfortunately, they are not alone. According to the National
Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, in 2016 there were 21
police officers killed in ambush-style attacks. Shockingly,
20 of these officers were killed in eight multiple-shooting
death incidents--such as those that claimed the lives of 8
officers in Baton Rouge, LA and Dallas, TX--the highest total
of any year since 1932.
It is for these reasons and many others that the
legislation you have introduced is so important. The ``Thin
Blue Line Act'' would make the murder or attempted murder of
police officers, prosecutors, firefighters, and other first
responders at any level of government an aggravating factor
in federal death penalty determinations. The bill applies to
things like the interstate homicide of an officer, and is
applicable whether the officer is murdered on duty, because
of the performance of their duty, or because of their status
as a public official. While we know that law enforcement
officers will continue to be targets, regardless of their
uniform and whether they are on duty or off, active or
retired, this legislation sends the message that any action
to target law enforcement officers for murder or violence
will be met with the harshest of penalties. And that is a
message that is long overdue.
On behalf of the membership of our organization, thank you
for your leadership on this important issue. We look forward
to working with you to see it swiftly enacted into law.
Please do not hesitate to contact me, or our Washington
Representatives Andrew Siff and Chris Granberg if we can be
of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Ed Mullins,
President.
[[Page H4243]]
Mr. BUCK. 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.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the rule for H.R.
115, ``Thin Blue Line Act of 2017.''
I would like to acknowledge and commend our law enforcement officers
in the room today and across this country who have worked tirelessly on
our behalf.
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.
H.R. 115 is duplicative and unnecessary because under 18 U.S.C.
3592(c), there already exists an aggravated factor that achieves the
goal of punishing by death, a defendant who kills a law enforcement
officer, thereby, making.
This bill does nothing to protect our law enforcement; 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.
Let us take for example, the case of Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. ___
(2017) where the death penalty verdict was based merely on `whether
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.
As Chief Justice John Roberts stated for the Court in reversing the
lower court; ``Some toxins can be deadly in small doses.''
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 is extremely deadly because it will undoubtedly
contribute to the continuation of well-documented and pervasive racial
disparities in the imposition of the death penalty.
Since 1976 only 20 white prisoners have been executed for the murder
of an African American victim, while an alarming 286 African American
prisoners have been executed for the death of white victims, and 42% of
African Americans currently remain on death row.
Death penalty generally, has been criticized over the years by legal
scholars and by Supreme Court Justices who have opined in several
instances, that `the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment, which
prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.'
Even in 1958, when the Court first explicitly spoke about the death
penalty as having constitutional challenges, it said in Trop v. Dulles,
``the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause must draw
its meaning from the `evolving standards of decency that mark the
progress of a maturing society' rather than from its original
meaning.''
Mr. Speaker, there is no argument that we have evolved and matured
significantly since we first implemented the death penalty in the 1600s
and thus, we must evaluate cautiously, laws that seek to further
advance this flawed, astronomically costly and unjust practice.
Capital punishment does not work; it is discriminatory and is used
disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial,
ethnic and religious communities.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976,
82% of all executions have occurred in the South (37% in Texas alone),
which contributed to the United States status as one of five countries
in the world to account for the most executions in 2012.
FBI data has shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent and in
fact, 14 states without capital punishment in 2008, had homicide rates
at or below the national rate.
Taking another life does not stop violence.
Like mandatory minimums, public opinion for the death penalty is
currently at its lowest with a 42% opposition, evidenced in a 2016 Pew
Research report, which found that the U.S. now dropped to number seven
worldwide in countries accountable for the most executions.
Mr. Speaker, over two-thirds of the world's countries have abolished
the death penalty either in law or practice, and the U.S. is the only
Western country that still uses the death penalty.
Even family members of murder victims and other individuals who have
witnessed live executions of death row inmates, particularly, in the
recent botched and questionable executions, have called for a repeal of
this practice and ask instead for alternative sentencing.
In fact the death penalty solves nothing, and may even perpetuate the
suffering of the parents, children, or siblings left behind.
We do not need to expand the use of the death penalty where public
opinion is at its lowest, but instead, implement sound and practical
legislation that will save lives of our officers and the people they
serve, where public opinion for this measure is extremely high.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 323 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
356) to establish the National Commission on Foreign
Interference in the 2016 Election. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole
[[Page H4244]]
rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the
bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall,
immediately after the third daily order of business under
clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole
for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 356.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of the adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 189, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 259]
YEAS--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Cole
Garrett
Gutierrez
Johnson, Sam
Lieu, Ted
Napolitano
Newhouse
Pelosi
Shuster
{time} 1349
Miss RICE of New York, Mr. McEACHIN, and Ms. BONAMICI changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H4245]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 184, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 260]
AYES--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--184
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Cole
Ellison
Franks (AZ)
Gutierrez
Harris
Johnson, Sam
Lieu, Ted
Napolitano
Newhouse
Pelosi
Takano
{time} 1357
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 260.
____________________