[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.

                          ____________________