[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 86 (Thursday, May 18, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4325-H4331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1039, PROBATION OFFICER PROTECTION
ACT OF 2017
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 324 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 324
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1039) to
amend section 3606 of title 18, United States Code, to grant
probation officers authority to arrest hostile third parties
who obstruct or impede a probation officer in the performance
of official duties. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any 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; (2) the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member
designated in the report, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as
read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous materials on House Resolution 324, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule
forward on behalf of the Committee on Rules today. The rule provides
for the consideration of H.R. 1039, the Probation Officer Protection
Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule
also provides for a motion to recommit and makes in order an amendment
by Congresswoman Jackson Lee of Texas.
On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules had the opportunity to hear from
my fellow Committee on the Judiciary members: Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr.
Cicilline, and Ms. Jackson Lee.
H.R. 1039 was marked up by the Committee on the Judiciary on May 3
and favorably reported by the committee without amendment.
Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we debate this rule and the
underlying bill this week during National Police Week. As the son of a
Georgia State Trooper, it is an honor to come before this House to help
advance legislation that protects the men and women of law enforcement.
The dangers our law enforcement officers face are real, and I know too
well the fear that a loved one might not come home after leaving for a
routine shift. This week we had the opportunity to recognize those who
make our communities safer, and we are humbled to advance the policies
that support their efforts, and we honor their sacrifice.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out that the sponsor of the underlying
bill we are discussing, the Probation Officer Protection Act, is a
former law enforcement officer himself. My friend Dave Reichert from
Washington State is Sheriff Reichert also, who led the task force
responsible for solving the case of the infamous Green River serial
killer. Along with him, I serve on the Policing Strategies Working
Group, and I commend him for his work on the underlying legislation and
his tireless advocacy on behalf of the heroes who wear the badge.
The Probation Officer Protection Act is a commonsense, yet modest,
expansion of the Federal probation officers' existing arrest authority.
Under current law, 18 U.S. Code section 111, it is a crime for a person
to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere
with any Federal official in the performance of his or her official
duties. While the Federal officials described by this statute include
probation officers, probation officers are limited in their ability to
take affirmative actions in order to protect themselves when they face
these threats not from the offender but from third parties.
Mr. Speaker, while probation officers can make arrests of those under
their supervision, the first party, such as a parolee or individual
serving a term of probation or supervised release, the law does not
allow probation officers to take action to protect themselves should a
third party impede or assault them.
In fact, if a third party, such as a family member or friend of a
parolee, threatens or attacks a probation officer, that officer's only
recourse is to retreat and call for local law enforcement.
[[Page H4326]]
Think about that, Mr. Speaker. I want to read that again.
If a third party, such as a family member or friend of a parolee,
threatens or attacks a probation officer, that officer's only recourse
is to retreat and call for local law enforcement.
Because the law has failed to equip probation officers with the
authority to arrest an aggressive third party, probation officers have
limited recourse when their safety is uncertain. Mr. Speaker, this is
unacceptable and even defies reason. When probation officers find
themselves in a dangerous situation involving third parties, they are
at the mercy of happenstance. Perhaps, in urban areas, other law
enforcement agents may be in proximity and able to respond. Perhaps, at
times, the brave men and women who oversee offenders on release may
have access to the backup they need once a third party threat has been
established. But I will tell you this, in these certain areas that may
happen. But it is possible, though, that without the authority to
deescalate or manage a dangerous situation without the necessary
authority to arrest threatening third parties, probation officers will
remain unnecessarily vulnerable to attacks, violence, or even death.
In rural areas, like my district in northeast Georgia, a probation
officer's restricted authority to arrest could pose an even greater
risk to their well-being. Local law enforcement agencies in rural areas
are often smaller and more separated from backup by distance. This
means that probation officers who call for help could be subject to
longer response times in the very moment they need the assistance the
most.
Considering these facts, Mr. Speaker, it is reasonable to make a
narrow, yet important, adjustment to current law in order to ensure
that the probation officers have third-party arrest authority when they
are forcibly threatened by that third party. Simply put, probation
officers enter dangerous situations for the benefit of our communities
and should be able to effectively protect themselves and others.
The Probation Officer Protection Act would address this flaw in
current law by providing necessary recourse for probation officers.
Under the terms of the bill, probation officers would have the
authority to arrest hostile third parties who forcibly assault, resist,
or otherwise impede a probation officer as they are carrying out their
sworn duties.
We have heard examples of probation officers making visits to those
under supervision, only to be greeted by third parties who are wielding
knives or baseball bats or yelling obscenities at the officers as they
attempt to serve the larger community. In these events, probation
officers should not be handicapped in their ability to perform their
jobs while protecting their own safety. As we know all too well,
situations with agitated third parties can escalate in an instant.
Officers on site need to be equipped to deescalate dangerous situations
for the good of the supervisee, the probation officer, and any
bystanders.
This legislation does not represent an unprecedented or large-scale
expansion of authority for probation officers. Probation officers
already have limited arrest authority for first-party offenders. They
are also bound by formal search and seizure policy and arrest
procedures. Probation officers receive training that instructs them in
properly detaining offenders so that they will be equipped with the
necessary skills to manage dangerous individuals in circumstances that
might warrant it.
Mr. Speaker, the intent behind the underlying bill is but one example
of a larger effort behind much of the legislation we have seen on the
floor this week. Every day, law enforcement officers put their lives on
the line to protect us. Every day, they face dangerous situations for
the sake of their neighbors. Law enforcement officers across the
country bravely walk into uncertain situations prepared to protect and
defend you and me and the people that we love.
I believe that our Nation's law enforcement--be they local, county,
State, or Federal agents--overwhelmingly abide by their oath to protect
and serve. In turn, we should remember their bravery and sacrifices
each day and thank those who risk their lives to protect us. We must
also thank the families who kiss their loved ones good-bye each
morning, fully aware of the risk that their service entails.
Our men and women in blue should experience our gratitude every day,
but this week, during Police Week, it is right for us to take the extra
care to commemorate those who have fallen and to honor those who are
serving.
As thousands of law enforcement professionals visit our Nation's
Capital this week, I encourage all of my colleagues to thank them for
their service. Also, I ask that all of my colleagues in this body look
at this commonsense piece of legislation and show their support by
voting ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill, H.R. 1039, but first and foremost, I want to make sure that we
recognize and honor the work and sacrifice that our police and first
responders do each and every day.
This week is National Police Week and, frankly, it is an opportunity
to honor every week, but in particular this week, those who run toward
the gunfire, those who run toward the building on fire every day.
In my own district in Colorado, I hear so many countless stories of
heroic acts and going above and beyond the call of duty by those on the
front lines of keeping us safe. In one example in Colorado, Officer
Ross Maynard responded to a domestic violence situation. The victim's
former boyfriend had broken a living room window in the middle of
January, leaving the victim and her young daughter exposed to our
record cold temperatures. Maynard went above and beyond his duty and
covered the window to keep out the elements. He vacuumed the shattered
glass from the floor when he found out the victim didn't have a vacuum
so that the child didn't receive cuts from the glass.
In example of heroism, dispatcher Sara Demgen calmly helped a man
deliver his son when his wife went into labor and they realized they
wouldn't be able to make it to the hospital.
It is individuals like these who we should celebrate and support
through our work here in Congress. Unfortunately, the legislation we
are considering today doesn't make anyone safer, and if we passed it,
it would bring about a constitutionally dubious process that could
interfere with the important work of law enforcement professionals.
Part of the reason this is problematic legislation is because the
process this legislation followed--like a lot of stuff that we have to
vote on--was not transparent and was not regular order. There was no
hearing on this bill. Even if we look back at last year's version of
the bill, there was no hearing on that one, either.
Then we look at the rule that we are debating now. Mr. Speaker, a
rule means what is the process for amending this bill. What we have
here is a shutting down of that process, where they didn't provide an
open rule. They allowed only one amendment as part of this bill that
had been offered. There was no opportunity on the floor, through what
is called an open rule, for Democrats or Republicans to offer good
ideas to improve this legislation.
Of the six amendments that were submitted that the Committee on Rules
considered yesterday, five of them were killed by the Committee on
Rules and not even allowed to be voted on or debated by the House of
Representatives. Now, the number of times I have had to come to this
floor and argue against a closed rule or a structured rule is
exhausting, and it is contrary to Speaker Ryan's promise that he made
for the world to hear that he would bring us back to regular order and
give everybody input on legislation that we consider in what is
supposed to be the people's House.
This rule, yet again, is not open. It rules five of the six
amendments out of order. The confidence and the trust in the House of
Representatives, it is hard to imagine how it could even sink much
lower, but it is restrictive processes and rules like this where
neither Republicans or Democrats are allowed to even offer amendments
or debate amendments to improve the legislation
[[Page H4327]]
that have led to the record level of distrust in this body.
In a moment, I will look forward to discussing the bill itself, but I
just wanted to take this occasion in particular to celebrate our law
enforcement professionals on National Police Week and every week.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate my colleague
pointing out certain things. Again, I think pointing out the complete
story there would also be helpful, and that is that the amendments
spoken of that were not made in order, following the rules of the
House, the Jefferson's Manual, and all were not germane. The one
amendment that was offered was made in order for this bill. The others
were not germane. If they want to be brought up in a separate bill or
separate order or find a bill that is actually germane to it, then that
is a different issue, but not in this one.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it seems that with each passing day, we learn
more about the tangled web of conflicts of interest and secret meetings
with Russians in and around the Trump campaign and Trump
administration. Last week, President Trump fired FBI Director James
Comey while he was overseeing the FBI's investigation into possible
collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian Government,
after reportedly asking Director Comey personally to drop the
investigation into former National Security Advisor Flynn's ties to
Russia. This week, we also learned that President Trump revealed highly
classified information provided by an ally to Russian officials.
Without President Trump's tax returns, we have no way of knowing if
he himself has financial ties or is financially beholden to Russia or
Russian interests, as news reports have suggested. The American people
deserve to know whether or not President Trump has conflicts of
interest, financial interests, or business dealings with Russia or
other foreign governments. It is imperative that we, as the people's
representatives, hold the executive branch fully accountable.
Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R.
305, which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the
Presidency to release their tax returns.
If the President truly has nothing to hide, including business
dealings or being economically beholden to Russia, he should freely
release his tax returns to reassure the American people that they can
have confidence that he is not acting out of conflict of interest but,
rather, in our interest as a nation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our important proposal, I yield 5
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that
the House can vote on my bipartisan legislation, the Presidential Tax
Transparency Act.
Mr. Speaker, in the last week, the President fired the FBI Director
who was investigating him. We then learned that the President also
pressured the Director to end his investigation of Michael Flynn's
Russia entanglements. These revelations, added to so many others, make
it abundantly clear that we must have disclosure of the President's tax
returns in order to fully understand his connections to Russia. The
Presidential Tax Transparency Act would require this disclosure for the
current President, all future Presidents, and Presidential nominees.
{time} 1245
This practice has never been required by law. But if there were ever
a time for Congress to codify this bipartisan disclosure tradition, now
is the time.
The President's behavior has raised questions since before the
election about what connections or exposure he may have to Russian
officials. After the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA concluded that Russia
did, in fact, interfere in our national elections; after several of the
President's associates and staff lied about meetings with Russian
officials during the campaign and transition; and after the FBI opened
an investigation into these Russia contacts, the President still
welcomed top Russian diplomats into the Oval Office for a closed-door
meeting last week.
Holding the meeting itself raised many questions. But in the meeting,
the President revealed highly classified, code-word information to the
Russians. I believe that this is unprecedented. No President in the
history of our country has ever done such a thing.
And on May 16, The New York Times reported that the President pressed
the former FBI Director Jim Comey to end his investigation of Michael
Flynn's ties to Russia before he fired him. This all begs the question:
Why is the President so eager to please the Russians?
The appointment of former FBI Director Mueller, a highly
distinguished public servant, as special counsel is most welcome. But I
believe that Congress can act today to provide public disclosure of the
President's tax returns, which would provide an immediate and important
window into the President's potential Russian entanglements, and answer
the critical questions of: To whom does he owe money? And who is the
President doing business with? What are those entities?
We know there are 564 of them. The American people deserve to know.
Only with full disclosure will we know the true sources of the
President's income, the holders of his debt, and the extent of any
business ties to Russia and other foreign countries.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a highly serious, bipartisan--I want to
stress that--bipartisan effort to exercise Congress' constitutional
duty to serve as a check and balance on the executive branch as a
coequal branch of government.
As the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on
May 14:
Our institutions are under attack, both externally . . .
and internally.
I want to thank all of the cosponsors of this bill and, most
especially, the Republicans who have had the courage to do so. It takes
courage to have courage. Now is the time to stand up and demonstrate
courage so that the American people will have confidence--confidence in
what takes place here and to answer the questions that are left
unanswered.
So by defeating the previous question today and voting to approve the
Presidential Tax Transparency Act, Congress can create a pathway to the
facts, and then the truth, that the American people have a right to
know.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Demings), the former Orlando police chief, and my good
friend.
Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I have taken three oaths in my lifetime.
The first oath I took was in 1984, as a police officer, when I was
sworn in at the Orlando Police Department. The second oath I took when
I was sworn in as the chief of police. And the third when I became a
Member of the 115th Congress.
Although different positions, each oath stated that I would protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I want
you to know that I have taken each oath very seriously.
I know former FBI Director James Comey understood the enormity of the
oath he took to uphold the Constitution to seek the truth, regardless
of outside influences or political circumstances. His loyalty is to the
United States Constitution.
The American people should have faith that no one--that includes the
President, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Deputy U.S. Attorney
General--should be able to interfere with the proper functioning of the
FBI or its work with local and State law enforcement agencies. It is
the responsibility of Congress to ensure that all our law enforcement
and intelligence agencies are able to fulfill their mission: to protect
and defend the United States and enforce criminal laws as appropriate.
[[Page H4328]]
I filed an amendment with the Rules Committee that would prohibit the
removal of the FBI Director, except for inefficiency, neglect of duty,
or malfeasance in office.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment would insulate the FBI's mission from
political influences and agendas. Unfortunately, it appears that the
Republican leadership doesn't think that this is a good idea, or simply
does not want to have this debate.
The rule reported from the Rules Committee prevents me from offering
this important amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman.
Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, if the FBI Director is abiding by the oath
he took, then he should not be removed.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind
everyone, as we have discussed here and we hear impassioned arguments
for amendments that were not germane, find proper places to put
amendments, and find bills that you want to write. That is all fair.
That is in our rule book. But remember, the only germane amendment was
made in order. I repeat, the only germane amendment was made in order.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As the gentleman knows, we grant necessary waivers for amendments all
the time. It is a very routine thing. So to argue it is not germane,
the Rules Committee can grant the necessary waivers for any of these
amendments. And, frankly, these amendments are more germane to what the
American people care about than the underlying bill.
Mrs. Demings' amendment that states that the Director of the FBI may
only be removed for inefficiency or neglect of duty or misuse of
office, what could be more germane to the concerns of the American
people than that? All it would have taken was granting necessary
waivers, as the Rules Committee does regularly on a number of bills
when it suits their interests.
Another amendment from Representative Kennedy was rejected to
reinstate the authority to appoint independent counsel for purposes of
an independent investigation.
One from Representative Lawrence was rejected to reinstate the
authority for independent counsel.
Representative Lieu had an amendment to reinstate the authority for
independent counsel to investigate and was not allowed.
Representative Moulton had one.
So all of those amendments, even though they are more germane than
any of the other items of what the American people care about, were,
nevertheless, not granted the necessary waivers to be included in this
bill.
The bill we are considering under this bill is highly problematic.
It, frankly, serves to hurt the very people it purports to protect.
I know we all value the safety of our first responders and the safety
of our communities. This bill would hurt the relationship police have
with communities without any need. It is truly a solution in search of
a problem.
This legislation would give Federal probation officers authority to
arrest third parties, not the person that they are working with on
probation, the ability to arrest them without a warrant.
When referring to third parties, that means people who are not under
the authority of the police officer. It could mean a mother of someone
on probation, a roommate, somebody who shares a house, and somebody
doesn't want the probation officer to come into their room because the
probation officer doesn't have a warrant, even if the parolee is in a
different room.
We need to remember that an individual, of course, gives up some of
their rights, including their Fourth Amendment rights, as a condition
of probation. But not everybody who comes into contact with that person
also should be required to give up their Fourth Amendment rights. The
mother in this example has not given up those constitutional rights,
which read: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause. . . .''
And simply being a roommate or a family member of somebody who is on
probation should not mean you lose your constitutional rights as an
American citizen.
If in this example the mother doesn't want the probation officer to
enter her room, she has that right, unlike the parolee. But this bill
would change the dynamics and allow the probation officer to say she
was interfering and arrest her, something that likely violates her
Fourth Amendment protections and would be overturned by the courts.
This would make family and friends of individuals entering probation
from prison scared of allowing the person on probation to live in their
homes. This could lead to increased recidivism and increased crime. It
will create a huge hindrance to the probation system and the goal of
successfully encouraging people to reenter society and avoid breaking
the law.
If people don't have a family member or friend to live with,
successful reentry becomes harder and almost impossible. We need to
remember that probation officers are part of the judicial branch, but
police are members of the executive branch. Not only does this
legislation complicate that, but it is a violation of separation of
powers.
When an individual is granted probation, as a condition of that
probation they give up certain rights, and that is understandable, and
under the authority and supervision of the judicial branch in doing so.
Third parties have not made that agreement with the judicial branch.
They are not their jurisdiction. They are not adjudicated by the
judicial branch. And probation officers should not have the authority
to arrest them without a warrant provided by an officer of the peace.
However, even if we don't care about the constitutional rights of
citizens, which I certainly hope we care about, we should care about
the fact that this bill would reduce the safety of our probation
officers. This legislation creates a very unsafe situation for our
probation officers who are not trained in law enforcement.
On average, a Federal probation officer completes six weeks of
training. That is compared to 21 weeks of training and 3 weeks of field
for a police officer. That is simply not the same level of training.
With the disparity, doesn't it make sense for probation officers to
use the assistance of police when they actually do need to arrest an
uncooperative third party or serve a warrant based on probable cause?
With additional police powers come more likelihood people could be
put in harm's way, and that is the opposite of what we want for someone
who doesn't have the proper training.
I also want to talk about why the bill is so bad. In many ways, I
asked myself the question: What problem are we trying to solve? Even if
we look at the associations that are pushing for this legislation, the
data just doesn't show that there is a need or that this would be a
productive step towards either keeping our communities safer--and this
bill would also put the lives of our probation officers at risk.
In a letter earlier this year, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association stated that ``formal arrests by probation officers are
rare.'' And 2015 data shows that, of the 987 searches conducted, only
30 uncooperative third parties, and even less arrests.
With so few incidents, it is, frankly, better for probation officers
to call or use the assistance of well-trained police officers, if
needed. That is the answer.
The proponents of this bill claim they have brought the bill forward
at the request of our first responders. But the request was not even
close to unanimous.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by officers,
chiefs of police, probation officers, and other first responders in
opposition to the bill.
May 16, 2017.
Dear Member of Congress: We are current or retired law
enforcement officers concerned about public safety,
constitutional policing practices, and building trust between
law enforcement and the communities we serve. In light of
Police Week, some Members of Congress have sponsored bills
that would increase incarceration rates, enhance penalties
for certain crimes, and, ultimately, weaken relationships
between communities and police departments.
[[Page H4329]]
The idea that ``law and order'' has declined in the
previous decade does a disservice to the law enforcement
officers who have taken oaths to protect and serve their
local communities. Those officers deserve programs and
policies that fund critical training, enhance important
policing skills that improve officer and public safety, and
offer technical assistance and operational support. We are
deeply troubled by recent legislative and executive actions
that support this divisive ``law and order'' rhetoric and
that chip away at our hard-fought efforts to sustain long-
term trust between our communities and law enforcement
agencies.
As officers who have handled high-profile incidents and
routine investigations, we know that keys to success are
strong leadership and morale, officer training and
accountability, and community trust and engagement. Below, we
offer several recommendations based upon these principles.
Programs that support mental health services for officers.
A number of law enforcement agencies are increasingly
recognizing the importance of regular mental health checks,
crisis hotlines, peer mentoring programs, and other mental
health services to alleviate the stress and trauma that
officers face.
Policies and programs for de-escalation and crisis
intervention training. As a result of such training, law
enforcement agencies learn to apply strategies that reduce
the likelihood of force-related incidents. De-escalation
training is essential to reducing the number of violent
confrontations between law enforcement and communities, as
well as increasing methods for age appropriate responses when
interacting with youth to improve their safety and well-being
in communities. These trainings promote best practices and,
as a result, reduce the risk of injury to police officers and
members of the community.
Policies that promote crisis intervention training
incorporating the services of mental health professionals.
Such professionals can assist officers in identifying and
responding to a person impacted by mental illness, an
intoxicating substance, or emotional distress. The public
safety benefits resulting from this training are well-
documented and broadly supported by policing and public
safety experts.
Programs that assist officers with understanding the
effects of systemic trauma and better deal with the aftermath
of trauma. Trauma sensitivity or trauma informed training can
help officers identify individuals showing signs of trauma
related behaviors, which may include: aggression; difficulty
processing information; impulsiveness; heightened fight,
flight, or freeze response; and hypersensitivity to noise or
physical contact. Training can help law enforcement avoid
interpreting such behaviors as requiring more aggression or
use of force and, instead, guide officers to respond in a
more informed and appropriate manner.
Policies and programs that incorporate implicit bias
training into police training at all levels. Implicit bias
training helps police officers mitigate racial bias during
community interactions, encourage respectful encounters, and
promote constitutional policing with the goal of building
trust with communities.
Programs that collect data on deaths and use-of-force
incidents by law enforcement. Specifically, we encourage you
to support the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Use-
of-Force Data Collection Program, which expands the Uniform
Crime Report Program to include use of force incidents by law
enforcement resulting in serious bodily injury. The Death in
Custody Reporting Act, which was signed into law in 2014,
must also be properly implemented.
Support the Collaborative Reform Initiative of the U.S.
Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services. The Collaborative Reform Initiative is a
valuable program that offers technical assistance and
operational support to local police departments to improve
policing practices, transparency, professionalism,
accountability, community inclusion, and procedural fairness.
The Collaborative Reform Initiative enables police
departments--which participate on a voluntary basis--to
sustain longterm, significant reforms in a manner that
improves trust between police and communities and meets the
public safety goals of residents. The work of DOJ's Civil
Rights Division around policing must also be supported and
sustained.
During Police Week, we urge you to prioritize federal
programs, funding, and legislation that support the above
polices, rather than legislation that would undercut
partnerships with our local communities. We invite you to
reach out to us about the above priorities and ask that you
support legislation and funding that champion these important
issues.
Sincerely,
Hassan Aden, Police Chief (Ret.), Greenville (NC) Police
Department; Chief James Abbott, West Orange (NJ) Police
Department; Officer Nick Bucci (Ret.), New Jersey State
Police; Sheriff Jerry L. Clayton, Washtenaw County (MI)
Sherriff's Office; Captain James Davidsaver (Ret.), Lincoln
(NE) Police Department; Deputy Chief Stephen Downing (Ret.),
Los Angeles Police Department; Former Probation/Parole
Officer and Corrections Counselor Shelley Fox-Loken, Oregon;
Major Neill Franklin (Ret.), Baltimore and Maryland State
Police Department; Officer Brian Gaughan (Ret.), Davenport,
Iowa and Chicago; Lieutenant Commander Diane Goldstein
(Ret.), Redondo Beach Police Department.
Ron Hampton, Community Relations Officer, D.C. Metropolitan
Police Department (Ret.); Blacks in Law Enforcement of
America; Officer Karen Hawke (Ret.), Massachusetts State
Police; Former Federal Corrections Officer Regina Hufnagel,
Boston, Massachusetts; Commissioner Terence Inch (Ret.),
Hellam Township (PA) Police Department; Senior Patrol Officer
Tim Johnson (Ret.), Madison (OH) Township Police Department;
Commissioner George Kain, Ph.D, Ridgefield (CT) Board of
Police Commissioners; Analyst Richard Kennedy (Ret.), Central
Intelligence Agency; Chief Larry Kirk (Ret.), Old Monroe (MO)
Police Department; Former Special Agent David Long, U.S.
Department of Labor; Former Detective and Deputy Sheriff Nick
Morrow, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
Lieutenant Joanne Naughton (Ret.), New York Police
Department; Chief Norm Stamper (Ret.), Seattle (WA) Police
Department; Special Agent Ray Strack (Ret.), Department of
Homeland Security, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Former Police
Officer Silvestre Tanenbaum, Carrollton (TX) Police
Department; Sergeant Carl Tennenbaum (Ret.), San Francisco
Police Department; Former Detention Officer and Deputy
Marshal Jason Thomas, Prowers County, Colorado; Detective
James Trainum (Ret.), Washington Metropolitan Police
Department; Deputy Sheriff Darren Ullmann, Cowlitz County
(OR) Sheriff's Office; Federal Probation Officer LeRoy
Washington (Ret.), Hawaii; Officer Jack Wilborn (Ret.),
Glendale (AZ) Police Department; Detective Howard Wooldridge
(Ret.), Michigan.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, as they state, in part, in the letter: ``We
are deeply troubled by recent legislative and executive actions that
support this divisive `law and order' rhetoric and that chip away at
our hard-fought efforts to sustain long-term trust between our
communities and law enforcement agencies.''
This letter is signed by many current and former police chiefs,
sheriffs, and other law enforcement officials.
In the letter that I included in the Record, which will now appear
for the world to see, law enforcement professionals say that instead of
pushing forward with this bill that we are being asked to consider
under a closed and restrictive rule, we should focus on mental health
and trauma services for officers to support them, programs and policies
for de-escalation and crises intervention training, better staffing for
our police agencies and probation officers, programs and policies that
incorporate implicit bias training into police training and probation
office training, and community-oriented policing. These are the types
of policies that Democrats, and myself, would love to put forward
during National Police Week to support our law enforcement
professionals and to keep our communities safe.
Why aren't we focusing on those kinds of ideas, rather than a
solution in search of a problem?
It is National Police Week, and we should be supporting legislation
that protects and supports our police, not create a greater schism
between our community and police through an unconstitutional bill that
puts the lives of our probation officers at risk, and will likely
increase recidivism among those on probation.
{time} 1300
We can do better. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I appreciate the debate
today. Also, I feel, in just a little bit of ways, I am sort of Alice
in Wonderland here; what is up is down and what is down is up. I am not
sure how you take this bill to, number one, say that probation officers
would be any more in danger.
I would also, Mr. Speaker, like to include in the Record another
letter that is from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association in
support of what is going on here.
Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Association
Cabin John, MD, May 17, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Leader Pelosi: I am writing on behalf
of the nearly 27,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Association to advise you of our
[[Page H4330]]
strong support for H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer
Protection Act,'' and to express our appreciation for the
Congress's consideration of this important officer safety
measure during National Police Week. FLEOA opposes the
amendment that will be offered on the floor to sunset the
authority provided by the bill, as you cannot put a stopwatch
on critical law enforcement officer protection measures such
as H.R. 1039.
The ``Probation Officer Protection Act'' is a critical
officer safety measure. At a time when U.S. Probation
Officers have seen their workloads increase due to changes in
sentencing policy and are being asked to ``do more with the
same,'' ensuring that they have the means to protect
themselves when placed in harm's way is paramount. H.R. 1039
will fully authorize a U.S. Probation Officer to arrest any
third party who violates 18 USC 111. This statute has been on
the books since the 1940s and makes it a crime for any person
to forcibly assault, resist, intimidate, or interfere with
any federal officer in the performance of their official
duties. Current law, however, only allows Probation Officers
to make arrests of individuals on probation or under
supervised release who violate 18 USC 111. This authority
does not extend to ``third parties,'' which could include a
former associate of the offender or an unidentified member of
the community. In many instances third parties are well aware
that a federal officer's authority is limited to individuals
on supervision, and when a third party does impede or assault
a U.S. Probation Officer, the Officer's only recourse is to
retreat and call for local law enforcement. While in major
cities local law enforcement may respond depending on
availability, the same is not true for U.S. Probation
Officers who work in rural communities where response by
local law enforcement may be a single officer or none. This
places Probation Officers at even greater risk, particularly
in those situations where retreat is not even a reasonably
safe alternative.
During the forthcoming debate on this bill, there will
undoubtedly be those who go to great lengths to demean U.S.
Probation Officers as something less than ``real'' law
enforcement officers or to diminish the hazards that they
face. Some may also raise inchoate objections about the
constitutionality of H.R. 1039. For example, you will hear
that Congress cannot extend Executive Branch police powers to
the Judicial Branch, despite the fact that it was Congress
that established the U.S. Supreme Court Police that resides
directly across the street from the U.S. Capitol. Not only
are such statements factually inaccurate, they display a
basic lack of understanding about those who serve our nation
as U.S. Probation Officers and the purposes behind the
``Probation Officer Protection Act.''
Make no mistake: U.S. Probation Officers are fully trained
federal law enforcement officers. They attend basic training
at the National Training Academy at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center in Charleston, SC, and receive
ongoing in-service training throughout the year. Their
training covers everything from firearms regulation and
safety and defensive tactics to handcuffing, the use of
force, de-escalation training, and reality-based scenario
training. It may be difficult for some to acknowledge, but
there is an inherent risk to the work U.S. Probation Officers
do--a risk that often outweighs that of traditional law
enforcement. They do not enter into sterile offices, but
often into environments that are uncertain. They are required
to have frequent and regular contacts in the home and
community and knowingly come into daily contact with
individuals who have a history of violence, mental health
issues, problems with authority, and troubles with substance
abuse. U.S. Probation Officers are not able to anticipate
what is going to occur during all contacts. There are and
have been occasions when U.S. Probation Officers are
threatened and/or attacked by third parties and they need the
ability to take an affirmative step to protect themselves.
U.S. Probation Officers are a unique profession. They have
a knowledge base in law and human behavior, and a mix of
skills in investigation, communication, and analysis. They
strive to make our communities safer, to make a positive
difference in the lives of those they serve, and promote
fairness in process and excellence in service. But as the
volume of approved searches they must conduct has markedly
increased over the past year due to changes in sentencing
policy, the absence of any authority to restrain or direct
the movements of third parties places U.S. Probation Officers
at a greater and unnecessary risk of physical harm. H.R. 1039
provides a modest expansion of U.S. Probation Officers'
existing arrest authority to cover only violations of 18 USC
111. It does not in any way provide them ``peace officer''
status or grant them the same general arrest authority that
state-level probation officers enjoy in many jurisdictions.
Granting U.S. Probation Officers the authority to arrest
third parties would not change who they are and what they are
seeking. Nor will it interfere with or otherwise diminish
U.S. Probation Officers' use of the de-escalation techniques
that are the hallmark of their profession. It would simply
afford them another tool, another avenue, if ever needed.
In the end, this legislation will enhance officer safety
while also protecting probationers and third parties by
preventing obstruction from escalating to actual violence.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this
legislation and for helping U.S. Probation Officers do their
job more safely by passing H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer
Protection Act.''
Sincerely,
Nathan R. Catura,
National President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I think what is interesting here
is I can't really, frankly, understand sort of the shade, I guess, or
the dismissiveness that is being thrown on probation officers and their
lack of training, which is 6 weeks plus 40 hours additional, which is
subject to their job.
The evidence that was presented here, the example of the person not
wanting a search, many times a probation officer will come with a
search warrant that will allow them to search anywhere. But even in the
case of the lady who did not want her room searched, the bill
specifically says forcible impeding, which is already discussed and
talked about in law.
Also, any officer who witnesses a crime or is being attacked does not
have to have a warrant to make an arrest. So, I mean, it is really
interesting to me why we are discussing a bill and doing so in such a
way for which there are actual instances where this takes place.
My friend said, well, it only happens a very few times. My question
for this, as a son of a State trooper, if his name was Leonard Collins
and he was actually going to do this, I would say that one matters,
even if it is the only one--lives of these probation officers, one.
So why we are doing this, I am not really sure. Why we would oppose
this, I am not really sure.
You can make stretched arguments here, but when a probation officer
goes in and, in the words of the bill, is forcibly intimidated,
impeded, attacked, they can arrest the person there who they have
already had training in how to arrest. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, how
you can make a good argument about that. You can try.
There will be debate here in just a few minutes, which this rule
gives, because I would encourage voting ``no'' on the previous question
and voting ``yes'' on this rule.
But there is also another issue that I do want to address. In this
majority, since this majority has been in control, there has never been
a waiver for germaneness on a floor amendment. Germaneness matters. So,
again, find the proper place.
As we go forward, as we look, at least in my time here, this is one
of the simple, straightforward issues. You are protecting and giving a
chance for those probation officers who encounter something that most
in this body now, in our current jobs, maybe in previous, have not had
to face.
So the question for me today is simply this. It makes sense as a
commonsense update. Support it. It enables them to carry out their job,
protecting themselves.
The underlying bill simply provides additional resources for
probation officers to protect themselves while, at the same time,
freeing up the demands of other law enforcement officers in the area.
When we understand the commitment that they make, I do not understand
making legal sidestep arguments of hypotheticals that may or may not
exist to say we should not give them another tool in their toolbox.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 324 Offered by Mr. Polis
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.
305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require
the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and
certain candidates for the office of the President, and for
other purposes. 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 among and
controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and
Government Reform. 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
[[Page H4331]]
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 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. 305.
____
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. COLLINS of Georgia. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________