[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 80 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4009-H4014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                     PROTECT AND SERVE ACT OF 2018

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 891, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 5698) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
punish criminal offenses targeting law enforcement officers, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 891, the bill is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5698

       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 ``Protect and Serve Act of 
     2018''.

     SEC. 2. CRIMES TARGETING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 120. Crimes targeting law enforcement officers

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever, in any circumstance described 
     in subsection (b), knowingly causes serious bodily injury to 
     a law enforcement officer, or attempts to do so--
       ``(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in 
     accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(2) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
       ``(A) death results from the offense; or
       ``(B) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to 
     kidnap, or an attempt to kill.
       ``(b) Circumstances Described.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are 
     that--
       ``(1) the conduct described in subsection (a) occurs during 
     the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the 
     defendant or the victim--
       ``(A) across a State line or national border; or
       ``(B) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of 
     interstate or foreign commerce;
       ``(2) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or 
     instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in 
     connection with the conduct described in subsection (a);
       ``(3) in connection with the conduct described in 
     subsection (a), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous 
     weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that 
     has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce;
       ``(4) the conduct described in subsection (a)--
       ``(A) interferes with commercial or other economic activity 
     in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
       ``(B) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce; or
       ``(5) the victim is a Federal law enforcement officer.
       ``(c) Certification Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--No prosecution of any offense described 
     in this section may be undertaken by the United States, 
     except under the certification in writing of the Attorney 
     General, or a designee, that--
       ``(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;
       ``(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government 
     assume jurisdiction;
       ``(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State 
     charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal 
     interest in protecting the public safety; or
       ``(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public 
     interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal 
     officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible 
     violations of this section.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Law enforcement officer.--The term `law enforcement 
     officer' means an employee of a governmental or public agency 
     who is authorized by law--
       ``(A) to engage in or supervise the prevention, detention, 
     investigation, or the incarceration of any person for any 
     criminal violation of law; and
       ``(B) to apprehend or arrest a person for any criminal 
     violation of law.
       ``(2) State.--The term `State' means a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``120. Crimes targeting law enforcement officers.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour debate on the bill, it shall be 
in order to consider the further amendment printed in part A of House 
Report 115-677, if offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) or his designee, which shall be considered read, and shall 
be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


 Permission to Postpone Proceedings on Adopting Amendment to H.R. 5698

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question 
of adopting the amendment to H.R. 5698 may be subject to postponement 
as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material to H.R. 5698.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  On October 15, 1991, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial 
was dedicated to honor Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the safety and 
protection of our Nation and its people.
  The memorial features two curving, 304-foot-long, blue-gray marble 
walls. Carved on these walls are the names of more than 21,000 officers 
who have been killed in the line of duty throughout U.S. history, 
dating back to the first known death in 1791.
  Each spring, law enforcement officers from around the country gather 
in Washington, D.C., for Peace Officers Memorial Day. For a week, these 
men and women attend events to celebrate and honor those law 
enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Each year, 
there is a memorial service in which the names of fallen officers are 
added to the long, curving marble walls of the memorial. Unfortunately, 
the list of names keeps growing and shows no signs of slowing down.
  That is why today I am pleased we are considering the Protect and 
Serve Act. This bill is designed to ensure those who seek to harm 
police officers face swift and certain justice.
  In recent years, the brave and dedicated men and women in blue who 
serve our communities are facing increased levels of hostility and 
violence. The increasing levels of hostility towards the law 
enforcement community have given rise to an increase in ambush-style 
attacks on police officers.
  In 2016 alone, 64 police officers were shot and killed in the line of 
duty, 21 of whom were killed in ambush-style attacks. According to CNN, 
in the first 17 weeks of this year, 21 law enforcement officers across 
the U.S. have been shot and killed in the line of duty. That averages 
out to more than one death every week.
  Only a few weeks ago, on April 19, 2018, two sheriff's deputies were 
gunned down and killed in a suspected ambush while they were eating at 
a restaurant in Gainesville, Florida.
  To address this threat to the brave police, who put their lives on 
the line each day across our country, the Protect and Serve Act allows 
for Federal prosecution of criminals who knowingly assault law 
enforcement officers and cause serious bodily harm or attempt to do so. 
This bill applies to both Federal law enforcement officers and State 
and local officers where there is a nexus to interstate commerce.
  Importantly, Mr. Speaker, this legislation recognizes that most often 
these crimes are wholly within the jurisdiction of a State to 
prosecute. Therefore, in addition to other requirements in the bill to 
ensure a Federal connection, H.R. 5698 states specifically that 
prosecution under this new statute may only be pursued if the Attorney 
General certifies that, one, the State does not have jurisdiction; two, 
the State has requested that the Federal Government assume 
jurisdiction; three, the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State 
charges left demonstrably unvindicated the Federal interest in 
protecting the public safety; or, four, a prosecution by the United 
States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial 
justice.
  This is a critical part of the bill. It will ensure that the Federal 
power is

[[Page H4010]]

reserved for particularly egregious cases.
  At the dedication of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, 
President George H. W. Bush aptly stated: ``Carved on these walls is 
the story of America, of a continuing quest to preserve both democracy 
and decency, and to protect a national treasure that we call the 
American Dream.''
  Today, we continue to recognize this special role police officers 
play in our society. The Protect and Serve Act sends a uniform message 
that our country will not tolerate attacks on police which purposefully 
attempt to undermine the State, sow chaos in our communities, and wreck 
the lives of many of our finest citizens and their families.
  I urge my colleagues to send a uniform message today by addressing 
the grave crisis threatening both our communities and the brave men and 
women in blue who put their lives on the line each day.
  I would like to thank my Judiciary Committee colleagues, especially 
career law enforcement officers Sheriff Rutherford and Chief Demings, 
for sponsoring this bill. In addition, I want to thank Congressman Buck 
for his years of tireless work to ensure that those who target law 
enforcement officers are punished.
  Finally, I want to recognize the police organizations who have worked 
with us so diligently on this and many other bills, including the 
Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police 
Organizations, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National 
Sheriffs' Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association, among many 
others. I thank them. We all salute them for their steadfast commitment 
and dedicated service.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Protect and Serve Act, while rooted in laudable 
goals, will not strengthen protections for law enforcement officers, 
and it fails to make meaningful reforms that would improve police-
community relations. Although I will not oppose the bill, I believe 
that its consideration today reflects a wasted opportunity.
  This legislation would create a new offense under title 18 of the 
U.S. Code for the crime of targeting law enforcement officers. Current 
law, however, at both the Federal and State level already makes it a 
crime. It is not clear why this bill changes the law in any meaningful 
way.
  No Member of Congress questions the difficulty, danger, and stress 
associated with being a police officer. A white paper commissioned by 
the Ruderman Family Foundation reported that, last year, 129 peace 
officers died in the line of duty--46 from shootings--with an 
additional 140 reported officer suicides. Since the start of this year, 
2018, at least 36 law enforcement officers across the United States 
have died while on duty, with 24 of the deaths caused by gunfire.

  Our hearts go out to the families of those officers who have lost 
their lives in the line of duty.
  As a result of the risk inherent to policing, there is no profession 
more widely protected under Federal and State law than working in law 
enforcement. All 50 States have laws that enhance penalties for crimes 
against peace officers and, in some instances, crimes against the 
broadly defined category of first responders.
  In fact, section 2 of the bill clearly acknowledges that States have 
primary jurisdictions for attacks on State and local police officers 
and lays out very narrow circumstances where a Federal nexus would 
exist. This presents an open question as to whether there would be any 
instances at all in which the Department of Justice would exercise 
jurisdiction under this legislation.
  I would note that my own State of New York has four separate criminal 
statutes addressing attacks on law enforcement officers. Moreover, 
Federal laws already impose a life sentence and, in some circumstances, 
even the death penalty on persons convicted of killing State and local 
law enforcement officers or other employees assisting with Federal 
investigations.
  Simply put, the legislation under consideration today does not 
improve upon this existing legal framework and does not provide any 
more stringent punishment for anyone under existing law.
  I want to be clear about the respect that we have for the difficult 
work undertaken by our law enforcement professionals. While attacks on 
law enforcement officials are completely unacceptable, the existing 
framework for prosecuting these crimes is more than adequate at both 
the Federal and State level. If it were not, I would be an ardent 
supporter of this legislation.
  Rather than advancing a bill that amounts to an empty gesture during 
Police Week, the Congress should instead be focusing on real reform 
measures that would actually protect law enforcement officers and first 
responders.
  We should act on the related problem of well-documented 
unconstitutional policing practices in communities of color across the 
United States that have eroded trust between those communities and the 
law enforcement officials sworn to protect them.
  The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department currently has 19 
consent agreements with troubled police departments nationwide. Dating 
back to the mid-1990s, every region of the country has suffered some 
kind of high-profile incident.
  Adding to community concerns are the increasingly well-documented 
incidents of unjustified deadly force against unarmed victims in 
police-civilian encounters. More than 50 percent of the unarmed victims 
in these fatal encounters with police were people of color.
  The goal of protecting police officer safety would be well served by 
working to foster law enforcement reforms aimed at helping local 
jurisdictions meet their constitutional obligation of fair and unbiased 
policing and the resulting better trust between the communities and the 
police in their midst.
  As we have debated the Protect and Serve Act, I have been encouraged 
by the expressed commitment by Chairman Goodlatte and the bill's 
sponsor, Representative Rutherford, to work with me on bringing the 
Judiciary Committee's balanced work on law enforcement accountability 
out into the open with hearings and the introduction of legislation. We 
should care equally about harms by and against police officers and 
their impact on local communities.
  We should care about the harms on local communities because of that 
harm and also because of the fact that it undoubtedly leads to 
distrust, which in turn leads to greater violence against police 
officers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Rutherford), who is the chief sponsor of the legislation 
and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte and 
Representative Nadler for their support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5698, the Protect 
and Serve Act of 2018. This important bill will enhance penalties for 
anyone who intentionally causes harm to our law enforcement officers.
  I can tell you after dedicating 40 years of my life to law 
enforcement, I know what officers go through every day when they put 
that uniform on, say goodbye to their families, and walk out the door 
to protect their communities.
  Sadly, we have seen a recent rash in increase in violence against 
officers, especially in ambush-style attacks. In fact, just last month 
in Florida, Sergeant Noel Ramirez and Deputy Taylor Lindsey were eating 
lunch and were specifically targeted and assassinated in that 
restaurant simply because they were police officers and wore that blue 
uniform. They are not alone. So far this year, 87 law enforcement 
officers have been shot in the line of duty, 28 of whom ultimately lost 
their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a 75-percent increase over last year. For this 
reason, I introduced bipartisan legislation with my good friend and 
former Orlando police chief, Representative Val Demings, that will 
ensure that there are the strongest possible penalties for anyone who 
decides to target and harm

[[Page H4011]]

not only Federal law enforcement officers but also local and State law 
enforcement officers.
  We worked on this bill closely with the Fraternal Order of Police, 
and I am proud to have earned the support of the National Association 
of Police Organizations, the Sergeants Benevolent Association, and the 
Major County Sheriffs of America, which represents thousands of 
officers across the country.
  This week, we remember the officers who have given their lives 
protecting our communities, and we, as Members of Congress, must show 
the law enforcement community across the country that we support them 
and the important work that they do day in and day out.

  We must also show those who wish to target police officers with 
violence that those attacks will not be tolerated. I urge all Members 
to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I should mention--I think I would be remiss if I 
didn't--that just yesterday morning, in Jacksonville, Florida, as 
mentioned earlier by my good friend from Washington, Dave Reichert--
Sheriff Reichert--held a moment of silence for those officers who have 
given their lives in service to this community. Yesterday morning, 
about 4 o'clock in the morning during a horrible storm in Jacksonville, 
Officer Lance Whitaker gave his life on Law Enforcement Memorial Day in 
service to our community.
  I have to say, Police Week and Law Enforcement Memorial Day always 
remind me of the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said that the 
purpose in life is not to be happy; it is to be useful. It is to be 
honorable. It is to be compassionate, and it is to know that you made a 
difference because you lived and you lived well.
  Mr. Speaker, I offer this bill in memory of Officer Lance Whitaker, 
who died yesterday morning living well.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is the distinguished ranking member of the 
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was honored just a few minutes ago to 
be on the floor of the House with the chairman of the committee, Mr. 
Goodlatte; the ranking member, Mr. Nadler; the proponent of this bill, 
Mr. Rutherford; and our Democratic proponent, Mrs. Demings, to honor 
those fallen officers with a moment of silence in the most powerful 
lawmaking body in the world, to acknowledge to the Nation and to the 
world that we stand united in honoring those who have fallen in the 
call of duty.
  I would like to express my deepest gratitude during National Police 
Week to all the brave men and women who continue to give of themselves 
selflessly. I also acknowledge my own hometown leadership: Sheriff 
Gonzalez, and, of course, our distinguished chief of police; all of the 
assistant chiefs, deputy sheriffs, and leadership; constables and their 
deputy constables; Texas rangers; and, of course, our Federal officers, 
over which this committee has jurisdiction. We thank not only them for 
their service, but also the families whose loved ones have fallen in 
battle.
  This is not a discussion of the respect and admiration we have for 
officers, and there is no argument regarding the difficulty, danger, 
and stress associated with being a police officer. We all have seen the 
reports that show, in 2017, 129 police officers died in the line of 
duty; 46 of those brave men and women were shot, while 140, tragically, 
committed suicide. That says a lot about the toll this type of 
profession takes on a person physically, psychologically, mentally, and 
on their families.
  The risks inherent in policing resulted in numerous statutes that 
deal with protecting our law enforcement officers via Federal and State 
law. Our law enforcement officers are most protected under our laws, 
and, in some instances, the statutes give life and the death penalty 
for such crimes. Even crimes against the broadly defined category of 
first responders are well addressed under Federal and State law.
  My State of Texas has several criminal statutes addressing attacks on 
law enforcement officers; therefore, this legislation may be deemed to 
be a duplicate legal framework. But I want to propose to my colleagues, 
as I did when we sat together at the Rules Committee, that we can work 
together in moving forward.
  I do want to say on this legislation that it does frame itself on the 
focus of the targeting of law enforcement. As well, it recognizes that 
the first prosecution level will be State and local laws to protect or 
bring to justice those who have shot police officers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Donovan). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that I respect the 
bill that is moving forward but recognize that we really need to do 
more.
  One of the points that I want to make is this new law does not have 
mandatory minimums. It does allow the discretion of the judge, but I 
believe that there are issues that our civil rights groups have raised 
that are legitimate.
  This bill is being contemplated during a time when our country is in 
need of a new look at the Nation's 18,000 law enforcement agencies. I 
hope my colleague, Mr. Rutherford, as we have honored those together 
who have fallen, will join us in the Law Enforcement Trust and 
Integrity Act that will provide for the opportunity for credentialing, 
professional development training and counseling, deescalation training 
that is necessary for our officers, and join in the enhancements of 
police-community relations. This will be a true tribute to our officers 
and, as well, provide a framework of protecting their lives as we 
engage the community in more coming together between police and 
community.
  I hope, again, that we move together as a committee and that the 
police working group will produce this kind of legislation. I support 
the Protect and Serve Act of 2018.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deepest gratitude during this 
National Police Week, to all the brave men and women that continue to 
give of themselves selflessly.
  There is no argument regarding the difficulty, danger and stress 
associated with being a police officer.
  We have all seen the reports that show in 2017, 129 police officers 
died in the line of duty. 46 of those brave men and women were shot, 
while 140 committed suicides. That says a lot about the toll this type 
of profession takes on a person both physical, psychologically and 
mentally.
  The risk inherent in policing resulted in numerous statutes with vast 
protection via federal and state law. Our law enforcement officers are 
most protected under our laws and in some instances life and the death 
penalty are imposed for such crimes.
  Even crimes against the broadly defined category of first responders 
are well addressed under federal and state law.
  For example, my state of Texas has several criminal statutes 
addressing attacks on law enforcement officers.
  Therefore, this legislation is duplicative in nature and does not 
improve current legal framework for crimes against law enforcement 
officers.
  I want to be clear about the respect that we have for the difficult 
work undertaken by our law enforcement professionals. However, as Mr. 
Chairman said at Rules yesterday in agreement with my concerns, we 
cannot ignore the danger in taking such a one-sided approach to the 
issue of police practices.
  Many of the civil rights groups have raised legitimate concerns. For 
example, this bill is being contemplated during a time when our country 
is in the throes of a national policing crisis, with a never-ending 
stream of police shootings of unarmed African americans captured on 
video.
  While I support protection for our officers, I am also troubled by 
the message this may send to all those impacted daily by the violence 
perpetrated by the bad apples within law enforcement.
  We should focus on real reform measures like the Law Enforcement 
Trust and Integrity Act that will protect law enforcement, first 
responders, and their communities.
  Over the years, well-documented, unconstitutional policing practices 
in communities of color across the United States have eroded trust 
between these communities and the law enforcement officials sworn to 
protect them.
  Almost 1,000 people were killed by police in 2017 according to the 
Washington Post. Another outlet estimates over 1,100 police-related 
fatalities last year, with people of color representing more than 50 
percent of those unarmed during fatal encounters with police.

[[Page H4012]]

  In the two years since the creation of the Judiciary bipartisan 
Policing Strategies Working Group, the Committee has advanced no police 
reform legislation.
  The country's interests would be better served by working to foster 
law enforcement reforms aimed at helping local jurisdictions meet their 
constitutional obligation of fair and unbiased policing. Repeatedly 
pursuing legislation, such as H.R. 5698, will sow seeds of division by 
ignoring the realities of police accountability issues, thus ultimately 
undermining public safety.
  We should care equally about harms by and against police officers and 
their impact on local communities.
  Out of respect for all who have lost their lives over the last year--
both law enforcement and civilian--we must dedicate ourselves to 
engaging the difficult issues in reforming police practices to make 
lasting change in our communities.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a gentleman 
who can speak well of the role that law enforcement officers play in 
saving lives. He is the chief majority whip of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding.
  I thank my colleague from Florida for bringing forward this important 
bill, the Protect and Serve Act, and especially, Mr. Speaker, as we 
celebrate law enforcement week nationally, a time to really thank those 
men and women who serve and put their uniform on every day to protect 
us, protect our communities, and keep our country and communities safe.
  I know all too well just that value and importance of having law 
enforcement and why they serve such an important role. Nearly a year 
ago, when we had the shooting in Virginia where a gunman targeted 
Members of Congress, it was those very law enforcement officers--in 
this case, our United States Capitol Police--who were the heroes who 
went toward the danger and confronted and took down the shooter, along 
with Virginia police who joined in as well.
  While they were risking their lives for us, they took on gunfire. 
They were shot themselves. In this case, it was United States Capitol 
Police David Bailey and Crystal Griner, who were just recently awarded 
incredible honors from the President and national law enforcement 
organizations for their heroic bravery. They went towards the fire, but 
they were shot and continued to take down and confront the shooter.
  Why this bill is so important is because it hardens penalties against 
any criminal who would target law enforcement officers. They deserve 
this protection. We have seen too often, in the last 2 years, where 
police officers were targeted by people because they wore the badge and 
because they are part of the thin blue line.
  We need to stand with them. We need to make it crystal clear that we 
are going to be standing with them and we are going to have their back. 
More often than not, they are the ones who have our back. That is why 
this bill is so important, Mr. Speaker.
  I rise in strong support and urge all of my colleagues to support 
this important legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the 
National Fraternal Order of Police dated May 9, 2018; the National 
Association of Police Organizations, Inc., dated May 16, 2018; the 
Sergeants Benevolent Association, dated May 8, 2018; and the National 
Sheriffs' Association, dated May 7, 2018, all endorsing this 
legislation.

                           National Fraternal Order of Police,

                                       Washington, DC, 9 May 2018.
     Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Pelosi and 
     Hoyer: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police to advise you of our strong support for H.R. 
     5698, the ``Protect and Serve Act,'' which was favorably 
     reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary earlier 
     today and to urge that it be considered next week during 
     National Police Week.
       The legislation, introduced by Representative John H. 
     Rutherford (R-FL), a former sheriff, and Val V. Demings (D-
     FL), a former police chief, would impose Federal penalties on 
     individuals who deliberately target local, State or Federal 
     law enforcement officers with violence. This year 87 officers 
     have been shot in the line of duty and 28 of them were 
     killed. Far too many of these murdered officers were slain in 
     ambush as was the case with Sergeant Noel Ramirez and Deputy 
     Sheriff Taylor Lindsey of the Gilchrist County Sheriff's 
     Department in Florida. These two officers were having lunch 
     together when they were assassinated by a man who fired 
     through the restaurant's window to kill them before turning 
     the weapon on himself. Similarly, the violent transnational 
     criminal organization MS-13 called for the assassinations of 
     police officers in New York so the gang could ``take back the 
     streets''--a move clearly intended to intimidate the men and 
     women in uniform.
       Ambush attacks like this are increasing at an alarming 
     rate. A report issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     on the motivations of cop-killers revealed that many of these 
     attacks are motivated by a hatred or animus toward law 
     enforcement officers. This same report stated that these 
     killers felt that the communities and elected officials no 
     longer supported their officers and they would not face 
     serious penalties for their actions. We must change this 
     perspective and we believe the ``Protect and Serve Act'' will 
     do just that.
       We appreciate, as always, your leadership and your support 
     for law enforcement officers and the families of those who 
     fell in the line of duty. As our nation comes together to 
     honor these heroes during National Police Week, I hope the 
     House will consider taking this legislation up on the floor 
     and passing it.
       On behalf of the more than 335,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, thank you for considering our view on this 
     important legislation. If I can provide any additional 
     support for this bill or on any other matter, please do not 
     hesitate to contact me or my Senior Advisor, Jim Pasco, in my 
     Washington, D.C. office.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                   Police Organizations, Inc.,

                               Alexandria, Virginia, May 16, 2018.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the National 
     Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), I am writing to 
     you to advise you of our strong support for H.R. 5698, the 
     Protect and Serve 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, 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 Protect and Serve Act of 2018 provides for new criminal 
     provisions for deliberate, targeted attacks on officers. This 
     bill is critical, as there is a serious and growing trend of 
     armed attacks on law enforcement officers. According to a 
     December 2017 report from the Office of Community Oriented 
     Policing Services (COPS) and the National Law Enforcement 
     Officers Memorial Fund, 2016 saw a significant increase in 
     ambush attacks on unsuspecting officers, with 21 shot and 
     killed. 61% of those officers were not answering a call for 
     service or engaged in enforcement action or performing 
     official duties--they were targeted and killed just for the 
     uniform they wore. 12 officers were murdered sitting in their 
     patrol cars.
       NAPO has long been fighting to establish stricter penalties 
     for those who harm or target for harm law enforcement 
     officers. Any persons contemplating harming an officer 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.
       On May 13th, 360 American law enforcement heroes, who gave 
     their lives in the line of duty, were honored at the 30th 
     Annual Candlelight Vigil. In memory of those officers and in 
     the hope of ensuring there are fewer names added to the 
     memorial walls next year, we ask that you join us in 
     supporting H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve Act.
           Sincerely,
                                    William J. Johnson, Esq., CAE,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

         Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police Department, City 
           of New York,
                                        New York, NY, May 8, 2018.
     Hon. Robert Goodlatte,
     Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative Nadler: I am writing 
     on behalf of the more

[[Page H4013]]

     than 13,000 members of the Sergeants Benevolent Association 
     of the New York City Police Department (SBA) to thank you for 
     scheduling the markup of the ``Protect and Serve Act.'' The 
     SBA strongly supports this important officer safety 
     legislation and we respectfully request that the Committee 
     advance it to the full House of Representatives as 
     expeditiously as possible.
       Unfortunately for law enforcement officers today, it is a 
     simple fact that they must maintain constant vigilance to the 
     threats posed by those who seek to do them harm for nothing 
     more than the badge and uniform they wear. It is a vigilance 
     borne out of what we have seen in recent years, as far too 
     many officers have made the ultimate sacrifice at the hands 
     of cowardly criminals who have intentionally targeted law 
     enforcement officers for violence. Last month's ambush attack 
     in Gilchrist, Florida that claimed the lives of Sgt. Noel 
     Ramirez and Deputy Taylor Lindsey is just the latest example 
     of the rise in violence carried out on federal, state, and 
     local law enforcement. We have seen similar attacks in Baton 
     Rouge and Dallas in 2016, as well as the assassination of our 
     own NYPD Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu in December 
     2014. According to a recent joint study conducted by the COPS 
     Program and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial 
     Fund, between 2010-2016 there were 81 officers killed in 
     ambush-style attacks--targeted specifically because they were 
     uniformed police or deputies. Of this number, 25 of the 
     officers attacked were responding to a call for service at 
     the time of the ambush. Because these types of attacks 
     threaten to unravel the basic social fabric of our Nation--
     the rule of law--they must be met with the harshest of 
     penalties.
       It is for these reasons and many others that our 
     organization is proud to support the ``Protect and Serve 
     Act,'' which will help to address the rise in attacks on, and 
     increase the protection of, state and local law enforcement. 
     Specifically, the bill aims to combat targeted violence 
     against law enforcement officers by creating a new federal 
     crime for perpetrating, or attempting to perpetrate, 
     deliberate acts of violence against federal, state, and local 
     law enforcement officers. It would also permit the U.S. 
     Department of Justice (DOJ) to assume jurisdiction and 
     prosecute these heinous attacks on law enforcement in those 
     instances where the state has requested that DOJ assume 
     jurisdiction, or where federal prosecution is in the public 
     interest in order to secure justice. Penalties under the act 
     would range from up to 10 years in federal prison to a life 
     sentence if death results from the offense, or the offense 
     involved kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, or an attempt to 
     kill.
       On behalf of the membership of the Sergeants Benevolent 
     Association, thank you again for your consideration of this 
     important legislation. Please do not hesitate to contact me, 
     or our Washington Representatives, if we can be of any 
     further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Ed Mullins,
     President.
                                  ____



                               National Sheriffs' Association,

                                      Alexandria, VA, May 7, 2018.
     Congressman John Rutherford,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Rutherford: On behalf of the National 
     Sheriffs' Association (NSA) and the more than 3,000 elected 
     sheriffs nationwide, we write to endorse The Protect and 
     Serve Act of 2018. We believe that your proposal of this bill 
     is necessary and vitally important to the safety and 
     protection of our country's federal, state, and local law 
     enforcement.
       Each day deputies and officers put their lives on the line 
     to protect and serve their communities. They are the 
     mainstays of our communities, and should be treated with 
     respect. Egregious acts such as targeting, injuring, or 
     killing a law enforcement officer should be punishable to the 
     highest degree according to the severity of the crime.
       The National Sheriffs' Association strongly supports The 
     Protect and Serve Act of 2018 as it works to punish 
     individuals who commit crimes targeting law enforcement 
     officers. We believe this bill is an essential to further 
     defend the safety of our nation's law enforcement officers.
           Sincerely,
                                             Jonathan F. Thompson,
                                       Executive Director and CEO.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the outset of debate today, I will not 
oppose this bill, although it merely duplicates existing law. It does 
not add any protection for the police and does not increase any penalty 
for someone who assaults a police officer. I am not interested in 
falling into the trap of opposing what amounts to a messaging bill 
brought forth during Police Week.
  But I want to be clear that I believe H.R. 5698 represents a wasted 
opportunity and appears tone-deaf to some of the real struggles 
happening in communities across our Nation. This bill is being 
contemplated at a time when our country is in the throes of a national 
policing crisis, with a never-ending stream of police shootings of 
unarmed African Americans captured on video.
  Creating a new, yet superfluous crime for offenses committed against 
law enforcement is not a great idea because it doesn't do anything. It 
is particularly not a great idea when we are ignoring the other problem 
that adds to the danger for police officers, which is the 
disconnectedness and estrangement of many police forces from the 
communities they serve.
  I hope this Congress will now get back to the difficult work of 
legislating meaningful solutions. I am encouraged that my Republican 
colleagues have made a commitment to pursue balanced law enforcement 
accountability reform with hearings and, hopefully, the introduction of 
legislation. There is much work to be done.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from various civil 
rights and civil liberties groups relative to this bill.


                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 2018.
     Re Coalition Opposition to H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve 
         Act of 2018.

       Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the 28 undersigned 
     civil rights, civil liberties, faith-based, and government 
     accountability organizations, we write to urge you to oppose 
     H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve Act of 2018, which creates a 
     new crime for offenses that target law enforcement officers.
       First, police already have substantial protections under 
     federal and state law, rendering this bill superfluous. 
     Second, this bill signals that there is a ``war on police,'' 
     which is not only untrue, but an unhelpful and dangerous 
     narrative to uplift. And finally, bills similar to Protect 
     and Serve that have been introduced in states around the 
     country--so called ``Blue Lives Matter'' bills--appear to be 
     a political response to the growing national movement for 
     police accountability in the face of continued killings and 
     assaults of unarmed African Americans; therefore, this bill 
     is divisive and will have a negative impact on the 
     relationship between law enforcement and the communities they 
     serve.
       i. Federal and state criminal laws already offer ample 
     protection to police officers.
       Federal law already has extremely strong penalties for 
     people who commit crimes against law enforcement officers and 
     other public officials. For example, federal laws impose a 
     life sentence or death penalty on persons convicted of first-
     degree murder of federal employees or officers, killing state 
     and local law enforcement officers or other employees 
     assisting with federal investigations and killing officers of 
     the U.S. courts. All fifty states have laws that enhance 
     penalties for people who commit offenses against law 
     enforcement officers, including for homicide and assault.
       Moreover, there is no record that crimes against law 
     enforcement go unprosecuted or are otherwise treated 
     frivolously There is no record to suggest that prosecutors 
     are unwilling or unable to charge individuals with crimes 
     against law enforcement. In fact, crimes against police 
     officers are treated as among the most heinous criminal acts, 
     given the high degree of culpability and punishment attached 
     to such crimes.
       II. The Protect and Serve Act does not advance any stated 
     policy goals, because law enforcement is not subject to 
     increasing or widespread attacks.
       There is no doubt that police work is a dangerous 
     undertaking, but the reality is that there has been a 
     continuing decline in the number of officers killed or 
     assaulted in the line of duty over the last several decades. 
     In the past ten years, the number of officers feloniously 
     killed has fluctuated, yet not significantly increased or 
     decreased, as have ambush-style killings of officers. Given 
     these facts, this bill perpetuates a false narrative that 
     police are under increasing attack by their communities. Such 
     a message is unhelpful and unsupported.
       Furthermore, the Protect and Serve Act does nothing to 
     meaningfully improve officer safety and wellness if that is 
     an intended policy goal. For example, it does not call for 
     support services, better training, improved safety measures, 
     increased supervision, or any of the other multiple measures 
     available to law enforcement that are widely accepted as 
     promoting officer safety and wellbeing.
       III. Protect and Serve Act is polarizing and harms 
     community-police relations.
       This bill is being contemplated at a time when our country 
     is in the throes of a national policing crisis, with a never-
     ending stream of police shootings of unarmed African 
     Americans captured on video. Creating a new, yet superfluous, 
     crime for offenses committed against law enforcement is a 
     particularly disconnected and non-responsive policy choice. 
     Unfortunately, the Protect and Serve Act is similar to other 
     ``Blue Lives Matter'' type bills that create new criminal 
     offenses and penalty enhancements for crimes against police.
       Collectively, these policy efforts, which have sprung up 
     amid the national call for police accountability, appear to 
     be a political response to the powerful activism of 
     grassroots movements that demand fair and constitutional 
     policing. Rather than focusing on policies that address 
     issues of police excessive force, biased policing, and other 
     police

[[Page H4014]]

     practices that have failed these communities, the Protect and 
     Serve Act's aim is to further criminalize. This bill will be 
     received as yet another attack on these communities and 
     threatens to exacerbate what is already a discriminatory 
     system of mass incarceration in this country. Continuing to 
     undermine police-community relations in this manner sows 
     seeds of division, which ultimately threatens public safety 
     and undermines the work of law enforcement.
       For the reasons summarized above, we urge you to vote 
     against the Protect and Serve Act as it comes before the U.S. 
     House of Representatives. There is no justification for 
     creating a new crime for offenses committed against law 
     enforcement. At a time when we need to foster healing between 
     law enforcement and our communities, we should not be 
     considering legislation which not only does nothing to 
     advance the goal of officer safety, but will further erode 
     the relationship between police and communities.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you 
     have any questions, please contact Kanya Bennett of the ACLU; 
     Sakira Cook of The Leadership Conference or Sonia Gill 
     Hernandez of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
     Inc.
           Sincerely,
       American Civil Liberties Union; Anti-Defamation League; 
     Campaign for Youth Justice; Church of Scientology National 
     Affairs Office; CLASP; The Daniel Initiative; Defending 
     Rights & Dissent; Friends Committee on National Legislation; 
     Human Rights Watch; Government Information Watch; Law 
     Enforcement Action Partnership; The Leadership Conference on 
     Civil and Human Rights; Muslim Advocates; NAACP.
       NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; National 
     Action Network; National Association of Criminal Defense 
     Lawyers; National Association of Social Workers; National Bar 
     Association; National Center for Transgender Equality; Nation 
     Council of Jewish Women; The National Council for 
     Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls; 
     National Council of Churches; People for the American Way; 
     PolicyLink; South Asian Americans Leading Together; Southern 
     Poverty Law Center; StoptheDrugWar.org.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I just want to make it very clear how important this legislation is 
for protecting law enforcement officers because it sends a message that 
we are going to handle these cases in a new way.
  Some have criticized this bill, claiming that it is a hate crime. 
While I share those individuals' concerns about Federal hate crime 
statutes, I am pleased to tell the Members of this Congress that this 
bill before us did not create a new Federal hate crime. That is because 
the legislation does not use the language from the hate crime statute 
that requires the government prove the defendant acted ``because of the 
actual or perceived'' status of the victim.
  What this bill does is penalize knowingly attacking a law enforcement 
officer. Given the increase in ambush-style attacks on law enforcement, 
which was detailed earlier, this bill represents a solution to a 
growing problem: the killing of police officers. It is narrowly 
tailored to accomplish that goal.
  Therefore, I want to assure those Members who may be concerned about 
its intent that it is definitely not changing our Federal hate crime 
statutes.
  This legislation this week, National Police Week, sends an important 
signal not just to our Nation's law enforcement officers, 900,000 
strong, but far beyond that, to all Americans, that we are placing a 
very, very high priority on saving the lives of men and women who put 
their lives on the line to protect us, to protect our freedoms, to 
protect our opportunities, to protect our families, to protect our 
communities, and making sure that people who ambush police officers and 
take police officers' lives are held fully accountable, which is what 
this bill does. It is a good bill. It is an important bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


 Amendment No. 1 Printed in Part A of House Report 115-677 Offered by 
                             Mr. Goodlatte

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, beginning on line 13, strike ``knowingly causes 
     serious bodily injury to a law enforcement officer'' and 
     insert ``knowingly assaults a law enforcement officer causing 
     serious bodily injury''.
       Beginning on page 5, strike line 24 and all that follows 
     through page 6, line 8, and insert the following:
       ``(1) Law enforcement officer.--The term `law enforcement 
     officer' means an employee of a governmental or public agency 
     who is authorized by law--
       ``(A) to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, 
     or the investigation of any criminal violation of law; or
       ``(B) to engage in or supervise the detention or the 
     incarceration of any person for any criminal violation of 
     law.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment makes two small, but important changes to the 
underlying legislation.
  It first clarifies the language of the bill to assure those who are 
prosecuted are acting with some level of intent in injuring a police 
officer. It does this by changing the language from ``knowingly causing 
serious bodily injury to a law enforcement officer'' to ``knowingly 
assaults a law enforcement officer causing serious bodily harm.'' This 
change will avoid covering situations where someone unintentionally 
harms a police officer.
  The amendment also amends the definition of law enforcement officer 
to ensure it covers all law enforcement officers who are putting 
themselves in harm's way each day, including corrections officers.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment is important because it ensures that, in 
practice, this statute can be used more efficiently to protect law 
enforcement officers. It also ensures that nobody who wears a badge 
will be unintentionally excluded from the bill's protections.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, that is good news, and I yield back the 
balance of my time
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the bill and on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1545

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. GOODLATTE. 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.

                          ____________________