[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.
____________________