[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 86 (Thursday, May 18, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4332-H4340]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THIN BLUE LINE ACT
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 115.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 323, I call
up 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, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 323, in lieu of
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of
[[Page H4333]]
Rules Committee Print 115-17 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 115
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Thin Blue Line Act''.
SEC. 2. AGGRAVATING FACTORS FOR DEATH PENALTY.
Section 3592(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after paragraph (16) the following:
``(17) Killing or targeting of law enforcement officer.--
``(A) The defendant killed or attempted to kill, in the
circumstance described in subparagraph (B), a person who is
authorized by law--
``(i) to engage in or supervise the prevention, detention,
investigation, or prosecution, or the incarceration of any
person for any criminal violation of law;
``(ii) to apprehend, arrest, or prosecute an individual for
any criminal violation of law; or
``(iii) to be a firefighter or other first responder.
``(B) The circumstance referred to in subparagraph (A) is
that the person was killed or targeted--
``(i) while he or she was engaged in the performance of his
or her official duties;
``(ii) because of the performance of his or her official
duties; or
``(iii) because of his or her status as a public official
or employee.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, Federal law provides a list of 16 aggravating factors a
jury is required to consider when deciding whether a death sentence is
warranted in a Federal capital case. These factors include whether the
defendant acted in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner;
whether the defendant engaged in substantial planning and
premeditation; whether the victim was particularly vulnerable; and
whether the victim was a high public official.
High public official, as defined in the statute, includes a litany of
high-ranking public persons from the President, to a foreign head of
state, to a judge or law enforcement officer. Currently, however, the
law only contains specific protections for Federal officers, not State
and local officers.
H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, introduced by my colleague, Mr.
Buchanan, amends Federal law to add the killing of a State or local law
enforcement officer as an aggravating factor for a jury to determine
during the sentencing phase of a trial, when the jury is considering
whether a sentence of death is justified.
This legislation enjoys widespread support in the law enforcement
community. And, Mr. Speaker, we can all understand why. In recent
years, police officers across our Nation have laid down their lives in
the service of their communities, often with little recognition or
support.
According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 17
police officers have already died as a result of gunfire this year.
Most recently, 2 days ago, Deputy Sheriff Mason Moore of the Broadwater
County, Montana, Sheriff's Office was shot and killed during a routine
traffic stop. We honor Deputy Moore's sacrifice, which is a stark
reminder of how a routine event can quickly turn fatal for an officer
of the law.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the scenarios where the provision
in H.R. 115 applies may be limited. It is true that the vast majority
of homicide cases are prosecuted in State courts. It is also true that
the circumstances where a defendant killed a State or local law
enforcement officer during the commission of a Federal capital offense
are probably limited.
But H.R. 115 is, nevertheless, vitally important in the scenarios
where it will apply--for example, in many terrorism cases. My
colleagues may not remember that the terrorist who bombed the Boston
Marathon also murdered an MIT police officer during their flight from
the law. H.R. 115 would also apply to situations where a State or local
officer is killed serving as a member of a Federal task force. And it
would cover volunteer first responders, who are, of course, authorized
by law to carry out their duties.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation sends a simple message: The stalking
and killing of law enforcement officers will not be tolerated.
H.R. 115 is straightforward, commonsense legislation that will
provide all the men and women of law enforcement, who serve and protect
our communities every day, with the support they deserve.
As we conclude the 2017 National Police Week, I urge my colleagues to
support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of the bill.
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.
Sincerely,
William J. Johnson, Esq., CAE,
Executive Director.
____
National Fraternal
Order of Police,
Washington, DC, 9 January 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
[[Page H4334]]
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,
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.
Sincerely,
Ed Mullins,
President.
____
Major County Sheriffs
of America,
April 25, 2017.
Hon. Vern Buchanan,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Buchanan: I write to you today on a matter
of significant importance to the Major County Sheriffs of
America (MCSA) and all of America's law enforcement
professionals. MCSA is an association of elected Sheriffs
representing the Nation's largest counties with populations
of 500,000 or more. Collectively, we represent more than 100
million Americans.
As Vice President in charge of Government Affairs for the
MCSA, I am pleased to express our association's support of
your legislation, the Thin Blue Line Act. This legislation
would make the murder of law enforcement officers,
firefighters and other first responders an aggravating factor
in capital punishment determinations.
In 2016, one hundred forty-four officers died in the line
of duty and to date, line of duty deaths are up 10 percent.
The targeting of law enforcement officers is unconscionable
and those who commit such heinous acts should be prosecuted
to the fullest extent of the law. Law enforcement officers
and other first responders have the right to go home to their
families at the end of their shifts.
The Thin Blue Line Act is a step in the right direction and
your work on this legislation is sincerely appreciated. We
value your support and look forward to working with you in
the future.
Michael J. Bouchard,
Sheriff, Oakland County (MI),
Vice President--Government Affairs.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, though troubled and saddened by the
recent attacks on law enforcement officials, I believe that H.R. 115,
the Thin Blue Line Act, is counterproductive to ensuring public safety
and only serves to exacerbate concerns with the unfair and unjust death
penalty.
H.R. 115 expands the list of statutory aggravating factors in Federal
death penalty cases to also include killing or targeting a law
enforcement officer, firefighter, or other first responder.
Aggravating factors are specific factors that judges and juries
consider in determining whether a sentence of death is justified for
the underlying offense. Passage of this bill would add a 17th statutory
aggravating factor for Federal death penalty eligible offenses.
H.R. 115 has been rushed to the House floor, without a single hearing
and without the opportunity to consider amendments directly relevant to
whether our system of imposing the death penalty is fair, just, and
reliable. Like most of my colleagues, I support measures that would
actually protect our first responders, brave men and women who risk
their lives every day to protect us.
Unfortunately, H.R. 115 not only fails to do this but would also
exacerbate problems with the Federal death penalty.
First, H.R. 115 duplicates Federal and State laws that enhance
sentences of persons convicted of crimes of violence against law
enforcement. The very law the bill seeks to amend, 18 U.S.C. section
3592, already states that a crime against a high public official,
including a judge, a law enforcement officer, or an employee of a
United States penal or correctional institution, is an aggravating
factor that may be considered in determining whether a death sentence
should be imposed.
Other Federal laws also impose a life sentence or death on persons
convicted of killing State and local law enforcement officers, or other
employees assisting with Federal investigations, as well as officers of
the United States courts.
Secondly, H.R. 115 does not address documented and systemic
unfairness and racial unfairness in the disposition of the death
penalty. Any legislation dealing with the Federal death penalty must
also address numerous concerns related to racial disparity in
application of capital punishment, the lack of qualified counsel and
sufficient resources to represent those facing the death penalty, and
faulty forensic ``science'' testimony ordered in support of convictions
in death penalty cases.
The Federal death penalty, in particular, is rife with troubling
evidence of racial disparity. For example, 36 of the 61 people
currently on Federal death row are African American, Latino, Asian, or
Native American.
If you break this down by Federal circuit, the results are even more
disturbing. For example, 15 of 18 men who have received a Federal death
sentence in the Fifth Circuit--Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi--in
the modern era have been people of color.
Third, civil rights and civil liberties organizations oppose H.R.
115. Organizations committed to the protection of civil rights and
civil liberties, including the NAACP, ACLU, and the LCCR, have noted
that the Thin Blue Line Act ``is an unnecessary and misguided attempt
to politicize the unfortunate deaths of law enforcement officers and
could ultimately exacerbate existing tension between law enforcement
and the communities they served.''
{time} 1500
And finally, H.R. 115 will not deter violence against police
officers. By adding a 17th aggravating factor to the Federal death
penalty statute, this legislation ignores scientific research regarding
the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to crime.
It is important to note that the National Research Council of the
National Academies has concluded that the studies claiming that the
death penalty has a deterrent effect on murder rates are
``fundamentally flawed'' and should not be the basis of sound public
policy.
Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan), the chief sponsor
of the legislation.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
[[Page H4335]]
yielding and for his incredible support for our Nation's law
enforcement officers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Thin Blue Line Act,
legislation I have introduced to support our Nation's brave police
officers, firefighters, and first responders.
This week, we recognize National Police Week, a time to reflect on
the very professional service of our law enforcement officers and their
families. It is also a time to honor the lives of those brave officers
who were killed in the line of duty and made the ultimate sacrifice.
It is really a sad reality that attacks against law enforcement
officers have skyrocketed in recent years. Their entire community
endured an especially difficult and heartbreaking 2016. In fact, in the
last year alone, police officer deaths from shootings have increased 56
percent, and ambush-style killings of law enforcement officers have
increased a staggering 167 percent, nationally.
We need to send a very clear message: The intentional targeting and
killing of our first responders will not be tolerated.
My bill, the Thin Blue Line Act, would make murder or attempted
murder of a police officer, firefighter, or other first responder an
aggravating factor in death penalty determinations. This bill will
serve as a strong deterrent to anyone planning an attack against our
brave men and women in uniform who protect and serve our communities.
We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to police officers and first
responders across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation to help our American heroes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation
which would expand the death penalty by adding a 17th aggravating
factor--killing or targeting a police officer, probation officer, or
firefighter--to the list of 16 aggravating factors already on the
books.
Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for our Nation's public
servants, our police, our firefighters, the men and women of the Armed
Forces, our teachers, and our other government employees. They serve
our Nation out of a sense of duty to our country and for the honor and
privilege of helping others.
But I cannot, in good conscience, support the bill we have before us
simply because its purported goal, though certainly not its result, is
to protect our public safety officers. The legislation is unnecessary
and duplicative since there are already extensive penalties at both the
State and local level for the murder of law enforcement officers.
As we know, numerous studies have demonstrated that the death penalty
is not an effective deterrent to crime in any event. Numerous studies
have shown that what enhances the deterrent is certainty and swiftness
of punishment, not severity of punishment. Therefore, adding the death
penalty as a punishment is unlikely to prevent future violence against
our police and our firefighters.
In addition, I believe the bill is counterproductive to our goal of
improving law enforcement and community relations.
If you oppose the death penalty, as I do, because, in many cases,
there is no appropriate access to counsel, which we know; because the
death penalty has racial disparities in its application, which we know;
and because, as we have seen over the past many years, there is a
strong possibility of a wrongful conviction leading to the untenable
situation of putting an innocent person to death, and we know that this
has been done in my State and others, then you should oppose this bill
and any bill expanding application of the death penalty which will
result in innocent men and women being executed. This bill does nothing
to correct any of these issues.
If you oppose the death penalty on moral and religious grounds,
perhaps because you believe that all life is sacred and that the State
should not sanction death as a punishment, then you should oppose this
bill as well.
There is another fundamental objection to this bill. It is one thing
to impose a death penalty for murder, bad as that is, or for any crime;
it is another thing to impose a death penalty for attempted murder.
This bill imposes the death penalty for attempted murder of police,
firefighters, and probation officers.
I am not aware that we have in the law, anywhere, a death penalty for
an attempted crime; and here, we are establishing a death penalty for
an attempt, an unsuccessful attempt. The bill imposes the death penalty
on persons who ``killed or attempted to kill.''
So under this bill, if you aimed the gun, even if you did not hit the
person or injure him in any way, the death penalty would be imposed.
This is a fundamental change in the law for which we are given no
reason at all.
The law has always recognized a distinction between a terrible act
and an attempted terrible act. The attempted terrible act certainly
should be punished, but not as severely as the accomplishment of the
terrible act. Here, we are establishing a death penalty for an
unsuccessful attempt to commit the crime, and no reason is given for
this fundamental break with our legal traditions.
So, for all these reasons--this bill is unnecessary, duplicative,
ineffective, counterproductive, and where it is new, excessive--I
oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) will control the time of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
There was no objection.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I would just briefly remind my
colleague on the other side that this does not establish the death
penalty for an attempted murder, as was just stated. There must be an
underlying capital crime for which the defendant is convicted. That is
what this bill does, and nothing more.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on July 7, 2016, while a demonstration
was taking place in Dallas, Texas, and police officers were protecting
the demonstrators, a sniper rang out shots. After the smoke cleared,
five Dallas police officers were murdered, seven others were wounded,
and civilians were wounded. The culprit was finally apprehended, and,
because he would not give up without shooting, he was killed by the
Dallas Police Department.
Ambush on police officers by citizens increased, for some reason,
last year. Locally, in Houston, Texas, Chief Deputy Constable Clint
Greenwood, a friend of mine, was walking into the courthouse at 7 a.m.;
and as he is walking into the courthouse, a person comes up behind him
and assassinates him, and he is killed. And that criminal was captured.
Attacks on law enforcement and all of the people that I mentioned
were local or State police officers. They were not Federal officers.
Now, we talk about discrimination. Why does Federal law discriminate
in punishment of outlaws in these type of death penalty situations by
not allowing the same punishment if the person is a local or State
police officer instead of a Federal police officer? I think that is
wrong.
As stated by the other side, most cases are made by State or local
officers, especially crimes of violence. What this bill does is not
discriminate against police officers who are local or State because of
their status in a death penalty case where an outlaw is charged with a
capital offense, but it allows the outlaw to get the same punishment
that an outlaw would get if they killed a Federal officer, which is the
death penalty.
As a former judge for 22 years in criminal courts and a prosecutor, I
believe in the death penalty, and here is the reason why: Some people
deserve it. They deserve it for what they did, and that is why society
should have the death penalty.
And that is just the way it is.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I hadn't planned to speak again, but a
gentleman on the other side was just completely incorrect in what he
said, and I have the bill here.
The bill does establish the death penalty for attempted killing, and
here is
[[Page H4336]]
the language. The bill is very short. It says:
The law is amended by inserting after paragraph 16 the
following:
Paragraph 17, killing or targeting of law enforcement
officer.
A. The defendant killed or attempted to kill, in the
circumstance described in subparagraph B, a police officer,
etc.
And B says:
The circumstance referred to in subparagraph A is that the
person was killed or targeted while he was engaged in
performance of his duties, basically.
So this implies the death penalty lists, as an additional aggravating
factor for the death penalty, someone who killed or attempted to kill a
police officer, a probation officer, a firefighter while they were
engaged in their duties--killed or attempted to kill. That is what it
means when it says killing or targeting. Targeting means attempting to
kill.
It is very clear. You cannot misread this. Maybe the drafter made a
mistake, but it is very clear. This applies the death penalty to
someone who kills or attempts to kill. It is the first instance I know
of in the entire corpus of American law where an attempted murder,
attempted killing, an attempted anything is given the death penalty.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I would just rise, once again,
to correct my colleague. It is an aggravating factor that is to be
considered by a jury as one of many factors postconviction.
So what you are saying is not 100 percent accurate. We can engage in
semantics, but we will agree to disagree on that point.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs.
Roby).
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the House, this week, is
taking action to support our law enforcement officers and their
families as we mark National Police Week.
We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to law enforcement officers at
all levels: State and local police officers, sheriffs, firefighters,
first responders, and our Federal agents. They all put their lives on
the line to keep this country and our communities safe.
Congress must always ensure that our law enforcement agencies have
the proper tools and resources to get the job done, and I am honored to
play a role in this important work through my service on the Judiciary
Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice,
and Science.
But, Mr. Speaker, law enforcement officers need more than equipment
and funding. They need our support. They need our support because they
are under attack. The last few years have seen a disturbing uptick in
the instances of police being targeted by violent criminals just
because they are wearing a badge.
According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, at
least 64 police officers were shot and killed in the line of duty last
year, 21 of which were ambush-style killings. Attacks in Dallas, Baton
Rouge, Chicago, and other places were chilling reminders of the dangers
these brave individuals face when they go to work.
It is time to send a clear, strong message: If you kill a law
enforcement officer, you will be brought to justice and punished to the
full extent of the law. That is why I am proud to support H.R. 115, the
Thin Blue Line Act.
Under current law, killing a Federal law enforcement officer is an
aggravating factor when considering a death sentence for the offender,
just as it should be. However, the same deterrent and prosecution is
not extended to State and local police officers, firefighters, or first
responders. The Thin Blue Line Act would change this by making the
murder of local law enforcement an aggravating factor when considering
a death sentence.
Mr. Speaker, had this provision been in place just 4 years ago, it
would have applied to the Boston bombing case when the bombers killed a
local campus officer. It would also apply when State and local officers
serve on joint law enforcement task forces.
States all over the country are taking action to support law
enforcement through stronger protection for officers and stricter
penalties for criminals, and I believe Congress should do the same.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield an additional 1
minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
{time} 1515
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I must again correct the gentleman on the
other side. The underlying title 18 is the criminal code. It lists a
series of crimes and a series of penalties, and then you have a list of
aggravating factors, which make the death penalty mandatory if any of
them are present. There are 16 aggravating factors. This is number 17
and adds an aggravating factor; and when this aggravating factor is
present, the death penalty is mandatory.
Among the things this aggravating factor says, is ``attempt.'' So it
is the first death penalty--for that matter, it is the first death
penalty, mandatory or not, for an attempt, as opposed to an actual
killing. Even if it weren't mandatory, we should not have a death
penalty for an attempt. You should have a severe penalty, but a death
penalty should be reserved for actual murder and such crimes, not for
an attempt. Attempt is always punished more leniently than the actual
accomplishment of the heinous act.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to correct my
colleague. I guess we can do this all day, but I do actually have a
copy of the criminal code in front of me, and I would refer him to 18
U.S.C. section 3591(b)(2), where it lists very specifically and
expressly that attempts to kill are listed in the sentence of death.
I refer you to that provision, and it is not mandatory. The jury can
determine whether the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating
factors, or in the absence of any mitigating factors, whether the
aggravating factors alone justify a death sentence.
So I feel that we are engaging in an exercise of semantics, but it is
important that we don't misportray what this bill would accomplish and
what it would do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Gaetz).
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the men and women
of law enforcement whose selfless service to a noble cause fills me
with humble gratitude.
Being a law enforcement officer requires more than training. It
requires sacrifice, devotion, integrity, and honor. Most importantly,
it requires an unshakeable faith in the value and importance in the
rule of law.
What keeps our civil society from a descent into lawlessness and
chaos? What separates civilization from savagery?
It is a thin blue line--these men and women of law enforcement, who
give their blood, sweat, tears, and sometimes their lives in order to
protect and serve communities; who make the country a safer place, one
street, one neighborhood, and one community at a time.
As a society, our laws enshrine freedom, our security, and our
liberty. They uphold America's promise of innate fairness. But for
their service and devotion to our great Nation, our law enforcement
officers are often criticized and scorned by some they serve. Yet,
through it all, they continue to serve and protect.
Too often these brave men and women are targets of violence, which is
why I support the Thin Blue Line Act. An attack on law enforcement is
an attack on the freedom of the United States of America, and it cannot
be tolerated.
Mr. Speaker, some have spoken out in opposition to the death penalty
in this discussion, and they would say only God can judge. And while
that is true, certainly the United States Government can do a better
job setting up the meeting.
So today I rise in support of heroes, and I hope my colleagues will
do the same.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from
Michigan for his yielding and for his leadership and for the pleasure
that I have in working on the Judiciary Committee. Let me thank the
chairman and Members as well, particularly working on the Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, of which
this underlying bill comes to the floor on.
[[Page H4337]]
This is a very important week, Mr. Speaker. It is National Police
Week. A number of our constituents have been here, and we have had the
opportunity to hear from a number of outstanding leaders: a sheriff
from Los Angeles County; the sheriff from South Carolina; the police
department leader from Houston, Texas; and the head of the FOP.
So I think that we have had a good week in terms of hearings in the
Judiciary Committee, and certainly this past Monday we honored those
who tragically ascended to the memorial wall where we honor police from
across the Nation.
So I think it is important to put on the record that none of us, I
would hope--I certainly don't--take a back seat to the respect,
admiration, and the work that we do to keep our law enforcement and
first responders safe. We commend them for their service as we continue
to work on police and community working together.
We also are grateful for those who are engaged in enhanced community
relations as well as working with diverse communities.
So let me acknowledge individuals from Houston that we have lost:
Assistant Deputy Chief Clint Greenwood; Officer Richard K. Martin;
Harris County Sheriff's Deputy Darren Goforth.
We lost Jerry Ronald Walker of Little Elm Police Department.
Then officers who died in Dallas: Officer Brent Thompson, Sergeant
Michael Smith, Senior Corporal Lorne Ahrens, Officer Patricio
Zamarripa, and Officer Michael Krol.
I have had the chance to work with a number of chiefs of police,
including Chief Lee P. Brown, one of the first police chiefs in Houston
that I was able to work with as I began to engage publicly; Chief
McClelland; now Chief Acevedo; and chiefs in-between.
I particularly thank them for working with the community during
stressful times, during times when violence was evidenced out in the
community; not against police, but against communities--keeping the
peace, if you will, as we tried to work together.
So I support policies that are necessary, and I certainly support the
idea of protecting our law enforcement. Of course, the underlying bill
has that provision and indicates a protection of law enforcement
officers. In actuality, it provides the opportunity for the protection
as well as the utilization of the death penalty.
This particular legislation continues to want to add aggravating
factors, making it 17. If we had a hearing and if we were able to
determine that this would actually have an impact, there would be
reason to at least have a vigorous debate over whether there is an
impact or not.
But H.R. 115 is a duplicative bill and unnecessary because under 18
U.S.C. 3592(c), there already exists mechanisms that achieve the goal
of punishing by death a defendant who kills a law enforcement officer
or first responder.
First of all, it should be stated that the bill is based upon
underlying offenses, drug offenses. There is a whole myriad of actual
laws that are Federal criminal offenses, and if a death occurs under
that Federal criminal offense, then you are eligible for the death
penalty.
Let me cite as an example the Boston Marathon terrorists act and the
killing of the MIT officer who was killed. The Federal prosecutor was
able to take that case to the Federal court and to pursue a death
penalty because it was pursuant to a terrorist act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hill). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. The most heinous tragedy of those who were lost in
9/11, the mourning of firefighters, first responders, and law
enforcement who lost their lives, certainly there is no doubt that that
was a heinous terrorist act. If those terrorists had lived--there would
have been firefighters and first responders included, and their deaths
would have been, in essence, tried under the Federal death penalty; and
those heinous perpetrators would have been tried, given capital
punishment, if the jury had convicted them--there probably was no
doubt--and ultimately might have seen their end through the exercise of
the death penalty.
That is, I think, clearing up that we are standing here adding any
measure of difference to this particular legislation. If the act falls
under Federal criminal laws, you can be, or the murderer of you can be,
in fact, charged with a Federal death penalty.
On the other hand, if you go into a burning building and,
unfortunately, the owner of the building--or there is some unfortunate
incident and you are shot as a firefighter, you do not fall under this
statute. That is not a Federal offense, but you can fall under your
State death penalty cases.
Why would we be concerned about this idea of additional death
penalties?
Let me cite for you the case of Buck v. Davis, where the death
penalty verdict was based merely on whether the defendant is likely to
commit acts of violence in the future, and a psychologist opined that
being Black did increase the probability. The trial court reasoned
that: ``introduction of any mention of race was de minimis.'' In other
words, insignificant, completely ignoring that the largest number of
individuals that go to their death are African Americans. Thank
goodness for the Supreme Court and the reasoning of Chief Justice
Roberts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Justice Roberts stated for the court in reversing
the lower court: ``Some toxins can be deadly in small doses.''
Likewise, in the Gregg v. Georgia case, decided after Furman, the
court held that if death penalty is mandatory, such that no permission
for mercy is granted, and where capital punishment is based on
characteristics of the offender, then it is unconstitutional and
``arbitrary and capricious.''
The underlying bill has mandatory death penalties. It will cover
first responders if they are killed pursuant to Federal crimes. We are
standing here, not adding anything to the underlying bill. First
responders are protected. Law enforcement are protected.
I would hate to see any of them lose their life, but under a Federal
crime, their case will be tried as a death penalty case. In other
instances, it will be tried by State law. We respect these heroes and
sheroes. It is shameful if we use that to add another aggravating
element to the death penalty, and continue to discriminate based on
race.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to first acknowledge and commend the law
enforcement community throughout our country that work tirelessly to
help protect and serve our communities.
I especially want to thank Chief Acevedo for his leadership,
commitment to Houston, and for his vision on unifying communities
through police relations with the people they take an oath to serve and
protect.
As we celebrate police week, I would like to take a moment to thank
and honor all the officers that served selflessly and died in the line
of duty.
Especially, Assistant Deputy Chief Clinton Greenwood of Harris County
Constable's Office-Precinct 3, TX, died on 4/3/17;
Officer Richard K. Martin of Houston Police Dept., died on 5/18/15;
Deputy Sheriff of Harris County Sheriff office, Darren Goforth, 8/28/
15;
And Detective Jerry Ronald Walker of Little Elm Police Dept., TX,
died 1/17/17 and the five officers killed in Dallas, TX on 7/7/16--
Brent Thompson, Sgt. Michael Smith, Sr. Corporal Lorne Ahrens, Officer
Patrick Zamarripa, and Officer Michael Krol.
Additionally, I would like to acknowledge Houston's former Chief, Lee
P. Brown who laid the strong foundation for HPD's strong community
liaison practices with all communities; Harris County Sheriff Ed
Gonzalez; Alan Rosen, Harris County Constable, Precinct 1 and all of
our other men and women in uniform.
I know personally the level of stress and challenges posed, because I
have many friends that have and are currently serving my Congressional
district in Houston and our country very well and with great
distinction.
I support our policies that are necessary, so long as we are doing so
with fairness, in accordance with our Constitution, and in a manner
that is not duplicative of statutory measures already in place.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 imposes the death penalty for the killing or
targeting of law enforcement officers, firefighters, and first
responders as a 17th aggravated factor for homicide.
Although this bill is presented as a proposal to protect police
officers and first responders, it does much more.
[[Page H4338]]
H.R. 115 is duplicative and unnecessary because under 18 U.S.C.
3592(c), there already exists mechanisms that achieve the goal of
punishing by death, a defendant who kills a law enforcement officer or
first responders.
Prosecutors are already armed with prosecutorial discretion to seek
capital punishment in death penalty cases as demonstrated in the cases
below:
U.S. v. Ronell Wilson--2 NY City detectives were killed during a gun
sting operation. Defendant was sentenced to death.
U.S. v. Donzell McCauley--a Washington, DC police officer was killed
and defendant received a sentence of life without parole.
U.S. v. Kenneth Wilk--a deputy sheriff was killed while attempting to
serve a search warrant; defendant was sentenced to life without parole.
U.S. v. Kenneth Barrett--a state law enforcement officer was killed
during a drug raid, defendant was sentenced to death.
LaShawn Casey, an undercover police officer was killed in a
carjacking related to a drug transaction; a capital jury sentenced the
defendant to life without the possibility of parole.
These cases illustrate that prosecutors have the discretion under the
current law to seek the death penalty. By adding a 17th aggravated
factor under the vague, arbitrary and capricious language of H.R. 115,
we are heading down a dangerous path.
Please take note that the death toll of firefighters/first responders
reported by the National Fire Protection Association illustrates a
drastic decline in deaths overall, most of which were fire and accident
related.
The statistics available do not support the need for this duplicative
measure in H.R. 115.
This bill does nothing to protect our law enforcement or to ensure
public safety; instead, it raises constitutional questions as to its
validity because ``targeting law enforcement'' is substantially vague
language that will subject many innocent lives to death, based purely
on their desire to exercise their First Amendment rights about the
well-documented racial disparity in treatment throughout our
communities.
We must ensure that we do not create legislation of broad scope and
vagueness that will have a chilling effect on an insular group.
H.R. 115 is laced with a discriminatory effect that will trigger
strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment, and open the gateway for
draconian habeas laws.
This bill will create a slippery slope, further adding to recent
turbulence caused by Attorney General Jeff Session's memo and
destroying whatever trust remains between law enforcement and
communities.
This bill sends troubling messages around the world about how we view
and measure life in America in this 21st century.
It is time to get serious about this epidemic and not hide behind
vague language because `all' lives matter, blue, black, brown, white.
Mr. Speaker, while some may say that any adverse effects of the bill
before us are de minimis, and thus, will not severely impact the racial
disparity found in the use of the death penalty, it is neither the
amount of words in this bill nor the amount of time used to utter them
that is significant; rather, it is the discriminatory effect that will
result in communities disproportionately impacted by the death penalty.
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.''
Likewise, in Gregg v. GA, which was decided after Furman (invalidated
death penalty across the country), the court held if death penalty is
mandatory, such that no permission for mercy is granted, and where
capital punishment is based on characteristics of the offender, then it
is unconstitutional and ``arbitrary and capricious.''
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 is extremely deadly because it is arbitrary and
capricious, imposing the death penalty based solely on the status of
the victim.
The death penalty is already available both at the state and federal
level and is reserved for matters of extraordinary circumstances.
While we want to ensure that law enforcement officers, firefighters
and first responders received protection as they protect our
communities, we cannot and should not attempt to do so by weighing the
worth of lives and arbitrarily impose the death penalty based on our
measuring sticks of who should live and who should die.
H.R. 115 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.
Tax payers currently spend $740,000 for cases without the death
penalty, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26
million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000
more per year than a prisoner in general population.
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.
This measure is what public opinion suggests.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
There are two important very brief points for correction. I respect
the gentlewoman from Texas, but she just suggested to us that this
would be a duplicative law; thus, unnecessary because, as she cited the
Federal criminal code, she says that law enforcement officers are
already covered by the law.
However, I would refer her attention to 18 U.S.C. Section
3592(c)(14), and then subsection (d), where it clearly says in a
capital letter, ``a Federal law enforcement officer.''
So it is important to note that the existing Federal law does not
cover State and local officers, which this bill would and, thereby, is
one of the things that necessitates this action.
Also, I want to point out, respectfully, that that same criminal
code--just one-page later in section 3593, also in title 18, subsection
(f)--says: ``Special Precaution to Ensure Against Discrimination.''
We know that Federal law already provides that a jury must
specifically find that a defendant's race, color, sex, religion,
national origin, or that of the victim, is not a factor in their
decision.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, last November, Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania, Police Officer Scott Bashioum was shot and killed as he
and his partner responded to a domestic disturbance call. They were
ambushed as they approached the home. Officer Bashioum was also a
United
[[Page H4339]]
States Air Force veteran. He retired as a senior master sergeant with
29 years of service.
He will be remembered for his service both in the Canonsburg
community as a police officer, and to the country as a veteran.
Mr. Speaker, when our brothers and sisters are killed in the line of
duty, we can memorialize them by building monuments. We can remember
them by renaming buildings. We can support them by raising funds to
help their widows and their orphaned children.
{time} 1530
But most importantly, we can make sure we do all we can so that they
return home at the end of their watch and that we protect their right
to raise their children and their children's right to be raised by
them. The community needs to know that we do all we can to make sure
that thin blue line does not break and that thin blue line does not
bend. We need to work together as a nation to protect those who protect
the safety of all of us.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, every day, courageous men and women in
America's law enforcement leave the safety of their homes to go into
volatile situations, not knowing whether or not they will even return
home safely. These brave police officers and first responders have
dedicated their lives to ensuring our safety, as well as the safety of
our neighborhoods and communities. I honor these fearless men and women
and recognize the sacrifice they and their families make.
But merely saying thank you is not enough. The Thin Blue Line Act
will protect law enforcement officials by giving harsher penalties to
criminals targeting the police and first responders who put their lives
on the line daily to protect and defend us.
It is my duty and privilege to support efforts that give our
dedicated law enforcement officials the best possible chance of coming
home safely every day. Mr. Speaker, this is how I can show my
gratitude. Each House Member should join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 10 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana has 15\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that we are all in
support of the protection of our officers. I think that there is no
competition on sympathy or wanting to appropriately assure that those
who go up against our officers in a vile and violent manner would be
brought to justice.
I think the point on race disparity as relates to the death penalty
is relevant. It is about life. But I want to make it very clear: Under
this underlying bill, our officers who are State police officers are
protected already, including the example that I used about the MIT
officer in the Boston Marathon terrorist act. It is if you are in the
furtherance of a Federal crime. The bill itself is all Federal. You
have to be engaged in an act that is a Federal crime.
Clearly, if the terrorists on 9/11 had lived, the cases of the
firefighters who lost their lives certainly would have been tried--
those cases of the tragic, heinous deaths of firefighters who are our
friends, and certainly are my friends--under the Federal death penalty
law.
In the case of U.S. v. Kenneth Barrett, a State law enforcement
officer was killed during a drug raid. That is one of the underlying
offenses. The defendant was sentenced to death.
In the case of Lashaun Casey, an undercover police officer was killed
in a carjacking related to a drug transaction. A capital jury decided
to sentence the defendant to life without the possibility of parole,
but it was a capital jury.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so I want to honor them, too, but I also want to
show the disparities.
Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the very valuable point that Chief
Justice Roberts made in the particular case of Buck v. Davis and the
statistical documentation of the disparities in the death penalty
cases. We cannot ignore it.
Chief Justice Roberts stated before the Court, in reversing the lower
court, ``some toxins can be deadly in small doses,'' when the district
court wanted to ignore or diminish the fact that race was involved in
this case.
A psychologist had the audacity to say that being Black did increase
the probability that you would commit an act of violence prospectively.
How sad is that?
We are saddened by the death of our officers, but we are already
protecting them and the first responders. Pursuant to a Federal
criminal act, the prosecutor, at their discretion, can charge the
defendant with a death penalty case.
I just hope my colleagues will recognize that we are not divided in
our love, affection, and respect for the men and women that serve as
first responders and law enforcement throughout this Nation.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to speak on the floor today not only in
support of H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, but also in honor of all
of our brave men and women who put their lives on the line every single
day to keep our communities safe.
I am the son of a first responder myself. My father was critically
injured and permanently disabled in the line of duty. I know these
sacrifices very well.
This country owes our law enforcement officers an extraordinary debt
of gratitude for the many services they provide. Our Nation simply
would not be what it is today were it not for the sacrifices of all
those who take the oath to protect and to serve us.
The Thin Blue Line Act is simple: It seeks to expand on certain
penalties to also include the murder or targeting of a State or local
law enforcement officer.
Virtually every American--anyone of good conscience--is shocked and
disgusted by the recent trend of our local law enforcement heroes being
targeted for violent acts.
I am sad to report that, in my home State of Louisiana, we have been
named the most dangerous State in America for law enforcement officers.
It is shocking. It is true. It saddens all of us. The Thin Blue Line
Act is a commonsense response to this epidemic that we are seeing
across the culture.
We thank and we stand with our first responders back home in
Louisiana and all across our Nation. Those dedicated public servants
never question and never hesitate in the face of danger. As many people
have analogized this, we consider them our sheepdogs. They protect our
communities from the wolves of our society who prey upon the innocent.
To honor those sacrifices, I am proud, today, to support this
legislation on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter addressed to Mr.
Goodlatte and myself, and I want to read the first paragraph of it.
``Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers:
``We are current and former law enforcement leaders and officers from
jurisdictions across the country. We ask you to oppose H.R. 115, the
Thin Blue Line Act. We do so because we believe this bill will do
little to protect the lives of police and first responders and will
drive away resources proven to be effective at protecting law
enforcement and preventing and solving crime.''
April 26, 2017.
Re Law Enforcement Opposition to H.R. 115.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: We are
current and former law enforcement leaders and officers from
jurisdictions across the country. We ask you to oppose H.R.
115, the Thin Blue Line Act. We
[[Page H4340]]
do so because we believe this bill will do little to protect
the lives of police and first responders and will drive away
resources proven to be effective at protecting law
enforcement and preventing and solving crime.
We are all too familiar with the risks that local, state,
and federal law enforcement and first responders take each
day to prevent, investigate, and prosecute crime. In fact;
some of us have served alongside colleagues who were killed
in the line of duty. We understand the impulse to threaten
those who have murdered our fellow officers with the death
penalty, and some of us have experienced that desire
directly.
But we also know that the death penalty, as it currently
operates, is poor public policy. It is ineffective,
expensive, and can make irrevocable mistakes. It is also used
disparately and often on vulnerable populations, which
undermines our ability to create effective and trusted
relationships with those in the community on whose support
our success depends. That is why, while some of us may
philosophically support the death penalty, we all oppose its
expansion in practice--even under the auspices of supporting
law enforcement.
Each of us understands that it takes many and varied
resources to keep our communities safe. We need strong
partnerships with local government and the communities we
serve. We need well-functioning and modern systems to
collect, store and process police activities, crime data, and
evidence. We need equipment to protect and assist officers as
they perform their duties. One tool virtually never seen on
our list of needs is the death penalty.
In short, we believe H.R. 115 is an unnecessary expansion
of an already flawed and ineffective policy. We encourage you
to oppose this bill and instead support measures that promote
the overall health, safety, and welfare of law enforcement
and the communities we have been sworn to protect.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James Abbott, Chief, West Orange (NJ) Police Department
(1997-Present).
John Breckenridge, Officer, Manchester (NH) Police
Department (ret.).
James Davidsaver, Emergency Management Director, Lancaster
County, Nebraska; former captain, Lincoln (NE) Police
Department.
Neill Franklin, Baltimore Police Department (2000-2010);
Maryland State Police (1976-1999).
Gerald Galloway, Chief, Southern Pines (NC) Police
Department (1988-2005); Past President, North Carolina Chiefs
of Police Association; former Executive Committee member,
IACP.
Terence Inch, Professor of Criminal Justice, York College
of Pennsylvania; Former Commissioner of Police, Hellam
Township (PA); Former Detective Chief Inspector, New Scotland
Yard, London.
George Kain, Ph.D, Police commissioner, Ridgefield, CT;
Division of Justice and Law Administration at Western
Connecticut State University.
Douglas Orr, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor, Champlain College
(2009-present); Adjunct Professor, Gonzaga University (2006-
present); Detective, Spokane (WA) Police Department (1996-
present); Corporal, Idaho State Police (1992-1996); Patrol
Officer, Greenville (SC) Police Department (1987-1992).
Norman Stamper, Chief, Seattle Police Department (1994-
2000); San Diego Police Department (1966-1994).
James Trainum, Detective, Washington Metropolitan Police
Department (1983-2010).
David Walchak, Deputy Assistant Director (Ret.) FBI (2000-
2004), Sr. Advisor FBI (1999-2000), Sr. Policy Advisor USDOJ
COPS Office (1997-1999), Chief of Police (Ret.) Concord, NH
(1975-1997), President, International Association of Chiefs
of Police (1995-1996).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like all of my colleagues to
recognize that, during our observation of National Police Week, we are
reminded again of the importance of ensuring that law enforcement
officers are safe so they can carry out their duties effectively.
These kinds of ``enhancement'' bills like H.R. 115 do nothing to
invest in officer wellness or to address the everyday challenges faced
by police officers or first responders. Moreover, they are redundant,
especially because there are laws that protect police officers and
first responders from violence in all 50 States.
Rather than advancing a bill that amounts to an empty gesture, that
is damaging, at best, this Congress should focus on real reform
measures that will protect law enforcement, first responders, and their
communities. Providing duplicative protections to law enforcement
simply cannot counterbalance the impact of fundamentally flawed death
penalty legislation.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard many arguments from the other side of the
aisle in opposition to this legislation. Of course, they began by
saying how much they support the men and women of law enforcement. But
let's consider these arguments and decide for ourselves in closing
here.
First, we heard that the legislation is duplicative. It is not. In
fact, it closes a loophole that currently exists in Federal law. There
is currently no provision in our Federal law stating that the killing
of a State or local law enforcement officer shall be an aggravating
factor for capital punishment.
Next, we heard that this legislation is unnecessary. It is not,
unless you believe that State and local law enforcement officers are
not somehow entitled to the same legal protections currently enjoyed by
Federal officers. That is what this legislation would correct.
A third argument we heard is that this is a messaging bill. It is
clearly not that. Though it may be true that this provision would apply
in a limited number of cases because the vast majority of capital cases
are prosecuted at the State level, this bill inserts a provision in
Federal law that will be vitally important in the cases where it would
be applicable, such as in the Boston bombing.
On that point, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have noted that Federal law
already contains provisions to ensure criminals who carry out heinous
acts such as the Boston terrorism attacks are dealt with appropriately.
That is, of course, true, but saying that ignores the suffering of
families of fallen police officers who have lost their lives rushing to
aid after such an attack.
It also ignores the sacrifice of law enforcement officers themselves,
for example. Officer Sean Collier of the MIT Police Department is one
example. He was murdered by the Tsarnaev brothers during their flight
following their horrific act.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, what these arguments reveal is simply that our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose this bill because it
amends a Federal death penalty statute.
We would point out, in response to the letter that was just entered
into the Record, that we have received support letters that are already
in the Record from numerous law enforcement organizations, including
the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America,
the National Association of Police Organizations, and the Sergeants
Benevolent Association of the NYPD, among many, many others across the
country who believe that this is an appropriate step for us to take
today.
In light of all that, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to
reject the arguments of the other side, to support the men and women
who comprise the thin blue line between order and chaos in our society,
and to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 323, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. 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.
____________________