[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8058-8066]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           THIN BLUE LINE ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 115.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 323, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 115) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
provide additional aggravating factors for the imposition of the death 
penalty based on the status of the victim, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 323, in lieu of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
115-17 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 115

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Thin Blue Line Act''.

     SEC. 2. AGGRAVATING FACTORS FOR DEATH PENALTY.

       Section 3592(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after paragraph (16) the following:
       ``(17) Killing or targeting of law enforcement officer.--
       ``(A) The defendant killed or attempted to kill, in the 
     circumstance described in subparagraph (B), a person who is 
     authorized by law--
       ``(i) to engage in or supervise the prevention, detention, 
     investigation, or prosecution, or the incarceration of any 
     person for any criminal violation of law;
       ``(ii) to apprehend, arrest, or prosecute an individual for 
     any criminal violation of law; or
       ``(iii) to be a firefighter or other first responder.
       ``(B) The circumstance referred to in subparagraph (A) is 
     that the person was killed or targeted--
       ``(i) while he or she was engaged in the performance of his 
     or her official duties;
       ``(ii) because of the performance of his or her official 
     duties; or
       ``(iii) because of his or her status as a public official 
     or employee.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Federal law provides a list of 16 aggravating factors a 
jury is required to consider when deciding whether a death sentence is 
warranted in a Federal capital case. These factors include whether the 
defendant acted in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner; 
whether the defendant engaged in substantial planning and 
premeditation; whether the victim was particularly vulnerable; and 
whether the victim was a high public official.
  High public official, as defined in the statute, includes a litany of 
high-ranking public persons from the President, to a foreign head of 
state, to a judge or law enforcement officer. Currently, however, the 
law only contains specific protections for Federal officers, not State 
and local officers.
  H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, introduced by my colleague, Mr. 
Buchanan, amends Federal law to add the killing of a State or local law 
enforcement officer as an aggravating factor for a jury to determine 
during the sentencing phase of a trial, when the jury is considering 
whether a sentence of death is justified.
  This legislation enjoys widespread support in the law enforcement 
community. And, Mr. Speaker, we can all understand why. In recent 
years, police officers across our Nation have laid down their lives in 
the service of their communities, often with little recognition or 
support.
  According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 17 
police officers have already died as a result of gunfire this year. 
Most recently, 2 days ago, Deputy Sheriff Mason Moore of the Broadwater 
County, Montana, Sheriff's Office was shot and killed during a routine 
traffic stop. We honor Deputy Moore's sacrifice, which is a stark 
reminder of how a routine event can quickly turn fatal for an officer 
of the law.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the scenarios where the provision 
in H.R. 115 applies may be limited. It is true that the vast majority 
of homicide cases are prosecuted in State courts. It is also true that 
the circumstances where a defendant killed a State or local law 
enforcement officer during the commission of a Federal capital offense 
are probably limited.
  But H.R. 115 is, nevertheless, vitally important in the scenarios 
where it will apply--for example, in many terrorism cases. My 
colleagues may not remember that the terrorist who bombed the Boston 
Marathon also murdered an MIT police officer during their flight from 
the law. H.R. 115 would also apply to situations where a State or local 
officer is killed serving as a member of a Federal task force. And it 
would cover volunteer first responders, who are, of course, authorized 
by law to carry out their duties.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation sends a simple message: The stalking 
and killing of law enforcement officers will not be tolerated.
  H.R. 115 is straightforward, commonsense legislation that will 
provide all the men and women of law enforcement, who serve and protect 
our communities every day, with the support they deserve.
  As we conclude the 2017 National Police Week, I urge my colleagues to 
support this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of the bill.


[[Page 8059]]


                                           National Association of


                                   Police Organizations, Inc.,

                                  Alexandria, VA, January 5, 2017.
     Hon. Vern Buchanan,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Buchanan: On behalf of the National 
     Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), I am writing to 
     you to express our strong support for the Thin Blue Line Act.
       NAPO is a coalition of police units and associations from 
     across the United States that serves to advance the interests 
     of America's law enforcement through legislative and legal 
     advocacy, political action, and education. Founded in 1978, 
     NAPO now represents more than 1,000 police units and 
     associations, including the Florida Police Benevolent 
     Association, 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers, and more 
     than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair 
     and effective crime control and law enforcement.
       The Thin Blue Line Act increases penalties on those who 
     harm or target for harm public safety officers by making the 
     murder or attempted murder of a local police officer, 
     firefighter, or first responder an aggravating factor in 
     death penalty determinations.
       This bill is critical, as law enforcement officer assaults, 
     injuries, and deaths have increased sharply in recent years. 
     In 2016 alone, ambush-style killings of law enforcement 
     officers increased by 167 percent. Establishing stricter 
     penalties for those who harm or target for harm law 
     enforcement officers will deter crime. Any persons 
     contemplating harming an office must know that they will face 
     serious punishments. NAPO strongly believes that increased 
     penalties make important differences in the attitudes of 
     criminals toward public safety officers, and ensure 
     protection for the community.
       We thank you for your continued support of the law 
     enforcement community and we look forward to working with you 
     to pass this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                    William J. Johnson, Esq., CAE,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                National Fraternal


                                              Order of Police,

                                   Washington, DC, 9 January 2017.
     Hon. Vernon G. Buchanan,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Buchanan: I am writing on behalf of the 
     members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our 
     strong support for H.R. 115, the ``Thin Blue Line Act.''
       The ``Thin Blue Line Act'' increases the penalty for an 
     individual who targets, kills, or attempts to kill a person 
     who is a law enforcement officer, firefighter or any other 
     public safety officer, while he or she was engaged in the 
     performance of his or her official duties, because of the 
     performance of his or her official duties, or because of his 
     or her status as a public official or employee.
       Law enforcement officers have always faced threats while on 
     duty but within the past few years, officers have become a 
     target for violence solely because of the uniform they wear. 
     As you know, the FOP has called upon Congress to expand the 
     current Federal hate crimes law to include law enforcement 
     officers for this very reason.
       Of the 63 deaths by gunfire suffered by law enforcement in 
     2016, 21 of them--that's 33%--were ambush killings. These 
     were deliberate and sadly successful efforts by individuals 
     who set out to kill a police officer:
       The ambush attack against the Dallas Police Department; the 
     deadliest day for law enforcement since 9/11 that saw 5 
     officers killed from gunfire;
       The ambush attack against members of the Baton Rouge Police 
     Department that saw 3 officers killed from gunfire;
       The ambush attack against 2 Iowa police officers, Scott 
     Martin and Anthony Beminio who were killed as they sat in 
     their respective patrol cars;
       Officer Thomas Cottrell of the Danville Police Department 
     (OH) was killed by ambush.
       All of these officers died because of the uniforms they 
     were wearing. Those in our profession have always been in 
     harm's way. It is our job to protect others but it should not 
     be ``part of the job'' to be a target of someone who is 
     looking simply to kill a cop. We do not accept that our 
     uniforms alone make us targets because someone was driven to 
     rage over a perceived injustice or desires to strike a blow 
     against our civil government.
       On behalf of more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, I want to thank you for introducing this 
     legislation and amendment. If I can be of any further help, 
     please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director 
     Jim Pasco in my Washington office.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
     National President.
                                  ____

         Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police Department, City 
           of New York,
                                                 January 17, 2017.
     Hon. Vern Buchanan,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Buchanan: I am writing on behalf of the 
     more than 13,000 members of the Sergeants Benevolent 
     Association of the New York City Police Department to advise 
     you of our strong support for H.R. 115, the ``Thin Blue Line 
     Act.''
       For too long, members of the NYPD, along with law 
     enforcement officers across this nation, have been targets. 
     There has been a proliferation of groups and pundits 
     impugning the motives and mission of law enforcement. They do 
     so with no regard for the impact it has on our ability to 
     protect life, property, and the freedoms we all hold dear. 
     These constant attacks and the excessive, exaggerated 
     rhetoric of anti-police elements have led some to declare an 
     open season on police officers, and to welcome with cheers 
     and praise the cowardly criminals who target law enforcement 
     officers with acts of violence. We saw this first hand in New 
     York City in December 2014, when Officers Wenjian Liu and 
     Rafael Ramos were ambushed and senselessly murdered as they 
     sat in their radio car on a Brooklyn street corner. 
     Unfortunately, they are not alone. According to the National 
     Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, in 2016 there were 21 
     police officers killed in ambush-style attacks. Shockingly, 
     20 of these officers were killed in eight multiple-shooting 
     death incidents--such as those that claimed the lives of 8 
     officers in Baton Rouge, LA and Dallas, TX--the highest total 
     of any year since 1932.
       It is for these reasons and many others that the 
     legislation you have introduced is so important. The ``Thin 
     Blue Line Act'' would make the murder or attempted murder of 
     police officers, prosecutors, firefighters, and other first 
     responders at any level of government an aggravating factor 
     in federal death penalty determinations. The bill applies to 
     things like the interstate homicide of an officer, and is 
     applicable whether the officer is murdered on duty, because 
     of the performance of their duty, or because of their status 
     as a public official. While we know that law enforcement 
     officers will continue to be targets, regardless of their 
     uniform and whether they are on duty or off, active or 
     retired, this legislation sends the message that any action 
     to target law enforcement officers for murder or violence 
     will be met with the harshest of penalties. And that is a 
     message that is long overdue.
       On behalf of the membership of our organization, thank you 
     for your leadership on this important issue. We look forward 
     to working with you to see it swiftly enacted into law.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Ed Mullins,
     President.
                                  ____

                                             Major County Sheriffs


                                                   of America,

                                                   April 25, 2017.
     Hon. Vern Buchanan,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Buchanan: I write to you today on a matter 
     of significant importance to the Major County Sheriffs of 
     America (MCSA) and all of America's law enforcement 
     professionals. MCSA is an association of elected Sheriffs 
     representing the Nation's largest counties with populations 
     of 500,000 or more. Collectively, we represent more than 100 
     million Americans.
       As Vice President in charge of Government Affairs for the 
     MCSA, I am pleased to express our association's support of 
     your legislation, the Thin Blue Line Act. This legislation 
     would make the murder of law enforcement officers, 
     firefighters and other first responders an aggravating factor 
     in capital punishment determinations.
       In 2016, one hundred forty-four officers died in the line 
     of duty and to date, line of duty deaths are up 10 percent. 
     The targeting of law enforcement officers is unconscionable 
     and those who commit such heinous acts should be prosecuted 
     to the fullest extent of the law. Law enforcement officers 
     and other first responders have the right to go home to their 
     families at the end of their shifts.
       The Thin Blue Line Act is a step in the right direction and 
     your work on this legislation is sincerely appreciated. We 
     value your support and look forward to working with you in 
     the future.

                                          Michael J. Bouchard,

                                     Sheriff, Oakland County (MI),
                               Vice President--Government Affairs.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, though troubled and saddened by the 
recent attacks on law enforcement officials, I believe that H.R. 115, 
the Thin Blue Line Act, is counterproductive to ensuring public safety 
and only serves to exacerbate concerns with the unfair and unjust death 
penalty.
  H.R. 115 expands the list of statutory aggravating factors in Federal 
death penalty cases to also include killing or targeting a law 
enforcement officer, firefighter, or other first responder.
  Aggravating factors are specific factors that judges and juries 
consider in determining whether a sentence of

[[Page 8060]]

death is justified for the underlying offense. Passage of this bill 
would add a 17th statutory aggravating factor for Federal death penalty 
eligible offenses.
  H.R. 115 has been rushed to the House floor, without a single hearing 
and without the opportunity to consider amendments directly relevant to 
whether our system of imposing the death penalty is fair, just, and 
reliable. Like most of my colleagues, I support measures that would 
actually protect our first responders, brave men and women who risk 
their lives every day to protect us.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 115 not only fails to do this but would also 
exacerbate problems with the Federal death penalty.
  First, H.R. 115 duplicates Federal and State laws that enhance 
sentences of persons convicted of crimes of violence against law 
enforcement. The very law the bill seeks to amend, 18 U.S.C. section 
3592, already states that a crime against a high public official, 
including a judge, a law enforcement officer, or an employee of a 
United States penal or correctional institution, is an aggravating 
factor that may be considered in determining whether a death sentence 
should be imposed.
  Other Federal laws also impose a life sentence or death on persons 
convicted of killing State and local law enforcement officers, or other 
employees assisting with Federal investigations, as well as officers of 
the United States courts.
  Secondly, H.R. 115 does not address documented and systemic 
unfairness and racial unfairness in the disposition of the death 
penalty. Any legislation dealing with the Federal death penalty must 
also address numerous concerns related to racial disparity in 
application of capital punishment, the lack of qualified counsel and 
sufficient resources to represent those facing the death penalty, and 
faulty forensic ``science'' testimony ordered in support of convictions 
in death penalty cases.
  The Federal death penalty, in particular, is rife with troubling 
evidence of racial disparity. For example, 36 of the 61 people 
currently on Federal death row are African American, Latino, Asian, or 
Native American.
  If you break this down by Federal circuit, the results are even more 
disturbing. For example, 15 of 18 men who have received a Federal death 
sentence in the Fifth Circuit--Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi--in 
the modern era have been people of color.
  Third, civil rights and civil liberties organizations oppose H.R. 
115. Organizations committed to the protection of civil rights and 
civil liberties, including the NAACP, ACLU, and the LCCR, have noted 
that the Thin Blue Line Act ``is an unnecessary and misguided attempt 
to politicize the unfortunate deaths of law enforcement officers and 
could ultimately exacerbate existing tension between law enforcement 
and the communities they served.''

                              {time}  1500

  And finally, H.R. 115 will not deter violence against police 
officers. By adding a 17th aggravating factor to the Federal death 
penalty statute, this legislation ignores scientific research regarding 
the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to crime.
  It is important to note that the National Research Council of the 
National Academies has concluded that the studies claiming that the 
death penalty has a deterrent effect on murder rates are 
``fundamentally flawed'' and should not be the basis of sound public 
policy.
  Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan), the chief sponsor 
of the legislation.
  Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding and for his incredible support for our Nation's law 
enforcement officers.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Thin Blue Line Act, 
legislation I have introduced to support our Nation's brave police 
officers, firefighters, and first responders.
  This week, we recognize National Police Week, a time to reflect on 
the very professional service of our law enforcement officers and their 
families. It is also a time to honor the lives of those brave officers 
who were killed in the line of duty and made the ultimate sacrifice.
  It is really a sad reality that attacks against law enforcement 
officers have skyrocketed in recent years. Their entire community 
endured an especially difficult and heartbreaking 2016. In fact, in the 
last year alone, police officer deaths from shootings have increased 56 
percent, and ambush-style killings of law enforcement officers have 
increased a staggering 167 percent, nationally.
  We need to send a very clear message: The intentional targeting and 
killing of our first responders will not be tolerated.
  My bill, the Thin Blue Line Act, would make murder or attempted 
murder of a police officer, firefighter, or other first responder an 
aggravating factor in death penalty determinations. This bill will 
serve as a strong deterrent to anyone planning an attack against our 
brave men and women in uniform who protect and serve our communities.
  We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to police officers and first 
responders across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation to help our American heroes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation 
which would expand the death penalty by adding a 17th aggravating 
factor--killing or targeting a police officer, probation officer, or 
firefighter--to the list of 16 aggravating factors already on the 
books.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for our Nation's public 
servants, our police, our firefighters, the men and women of the Armed 
Forces, our teachers, and our other government employees. They serve 
our Nation out of a sense of duty to our country and for the honor and 
privilege of helping others.
  But I cannot, in good conscience, support the bill we have before us 
simply because its purported goal, though certainly not its result, is 
to protect our public safety officers. The legislation is unnecessary 
and duplicative since there are already extensive penalties at both the 
State and local level for the murder of law enforcement officers.
  As we know, numerous studies have demonstrated that the death penalty 
is not an effective deterrent to crime in any event. Numerous studies 
have shown that what enhances the deterrent is certainty and swiftness 
of punishment, not severity of punishment. Therefore, adding the death 
penalty as a punishment is unlikely to prevent future violence against 
our police and our firefighters.
  In addition, I believe the bill is counterproductive to our goal of 
improving law enforcement and community relations.
  If you oppose the death penalty, as I do, because, in many cases, 
there is no appropriate access to counsel, which we know; because the 
death penalty has racial disparities in its application, which we know; 
and because, as we have seen over the past many years, there is a 
strong possibility of a wrongful conviction leading to the untenable 
situation of putting an innocent person to death, and we know that this 
has been done in my State and others, then you should oppose this bill 
and any bill expanding application of the death penalty which will 
result in innocent men and women being executed. This bill does nothing 
to correct any of these issues.
  If you oppose the death penalty on moral and religious grounds, 
perhaps because you believe that all life is sacred and that the State 
should not sanction death as a punishment, then you should oppose this 
bill as well.
  There is another fundamental objection to this bill. It is one thing 
to impose a death penalty for murder, bad as that is, or for any crime; 
it is another thing to impose a death penalty for attempted murder. 
This bill imposes the

[[Page 8061]]

death penalty for attempted murder of police, firefighters, and 
probation officers.
  I am not aware that we have in the law, anywhere, a death penalty for 
an attempted crime; and here, we are establishing a death penalty for 
an attempt, an unsuccessful attempt. The bill imposes the death penalty 
on persons who ``killed or attempted to kill.''
  So under this bill, if you aimed the gun, even if you did not hit the 
person or injure him in any way, the death penalty would be imposed. 
This is a fundamental change in the law for which we are given no 
reason at all.
  The law has always recognized a distinction between a terrible act 
and an attempted terrible act. The attempted terrible act certainly 
should be punished, but not as severely as the accomplishment of the 
terrible act. Here, we are establishing a death penalty for an 
unsuccessful attempt to commit the crime, and no reason is given for 
this fundamental break with our legal traditions.
  So, for all these reasons--this bill is unnecessary, duplicative, 
ineffective, counterproductive, and where it is new, excessive--I 
oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) will control the time of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I would just briefly remind my 
colleague on the other side that this does not establish the death 
penalty for an attempted murder, as was just stated. There must be an 
underlying capital crime for which the defendant is convicted. That is 
what this bill does, and nothing more.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on July 7, 2016, while a demonstration 
was taking place in Dallas, Texas, and police officers were protecting 
the demonstrators, a sniper rang out shots. After the smoke cleared, 
five Dallas police officers were murdered, seven others were wounded, 
and civilians were wounded. The culprit was finally apprehended, and, 
because he would not give up without shooting, he was killed by the 
Dallas Police Department.
  Ambush on police officers by citizens increased, for some reason, 
last year. Locally, in Houston, Texas, Chief Deputy Constable Clint 
Greenwood, a friend of mine, was walking into the courthouse at 7 a.m.; 
and as he is walking into the courthouse, a person comes up behind him 
and assassinates him, and he is killed. And that criminal was captured.
  Attacks on law enforcement and all of the people that I mentioned 
were local or State police officers. They were not Federal officers.
  Now, we talk about discrimination. Why does Federal law discriminate 
in punishment of outlaws in these type of death penalty situations by 
not allowing the same punishment if the person is a local or State 
police officer instead of a Federal police officer? I think that is 
wrong.
  As stated by the other side, most cases are made by State or local 
officers, especially crimes of violence. What this bill does is not 
discriminate against police officers who are local or State because of 
their status in a death penalty case where an outlaw is charged with a 
capital offense, but it allows the outlaw to get the same punishment 
that an outlaw would get if they killed a Federal officer, which is the 
death penalty.
  As a former judge for 22 years in criminal courts and a prosecutor, I 
believe in the death penalty, and here is the reason why: Some people 
deserve it. They deserve it for what they did, and that is why society 
should have the death penalty.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I hadn't planned to speak again, but a 
gentleman on the other side was just completely incorrect in what he 
said, and I have the bill here.
  The bill does establish the death penalty for attempted killing, and 
here is the language. The bill is very short. It says:

       The law is amended by inserting after paragraph 16 the 
     following:
       Paragraph 17, killing or targeting of law enforcement 
     officer.
       A. The defendant killed or attempted to kill, in the 
     circumstance described in subparagraph B, a police officer, 
     etc.

  And B says:

       The circumstance referred to in subparagraph A is that the 
     person was killed or targeted while he was engaged in 
     performance of his duties, basically.

  So this implies the death penalty lists, as an additional aggravating 
factor for the death penalty, someone who killed or attempted to kill a 
police officer, a probation officer, a firefighter while they were 
engaged in their duties--killed or attempted to kill. That is what it 
means when it says killing or targeting. Targeting means attempting to 
kill.
  It is very clear. You cannot misread this. Maybe the drafter made a 
mistake, but it is very clear. This applies the death penalty to 
someone who kills or attempts to kill. It is the first instance I know 
of in the entire corpus of American law where an attempted murder, 
attempted killing, an attempted anything is given the death penalty.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I would just rise, once again, 
to correct my colleague. It is an aggravating factor that is to be 
considered by a jury as one of many factors postconviction.
  So what you are saying is not 100 percent accurate. We can engage in 
semantics, but we will agree to disagree on that point.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. 
Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the House, this week, is 
taking action to support our law enforcement officers and their 
families as we mark National Police Week.
  We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to law enforcement officers at 
all levels: State and local police officers, sheriffs, firefighters, 
first responders, and our Federal agents. They all put their lives on 
the line to keep this country and our communities safe.
  Congress must always ensure that our law enforcement agencies have 
the proper tools and resources to get the job done, and I am honored to 
play a role in this important work through my service on the Judiciary 
Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, 
and Science.
  But, Mr. Speaker, law enforcement officers need more than equipment 
and funding. They need our support. They need our support because they 
are under attack. The last few years have seen a disturbing uptick in 
the instances of police being targeted by violent criminals just 
because they are wearing a badge.
  According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, at 
least 64 police officers were shot and killed in the line of duty last 
year, 21 of which were ambush-style killings. Attacks in Dallas, Baton 
Rouge, Chicago, and other places were chilling reminders of the dangers 
these brave individuals face when they go to work.
  It is time to send a clear, strong message: If you kill a law 
enforcement officer, you will be brought to justice and punished to the 
full extent of the law. That is why I am proud to support H.R. 115, the 
Thin Blue Line Act.
  Under current law, killing a Federal law enforcement officer is an 
aggravating factor when considering a death sentence for the offender, 
just as it should be. However, the same deterrent and prosecution is 
not extended to State and local police officers, firefighters, or first 
responders. The Thin Blue Line Act would change this by making the 
murder of local law enforcement an aggravating factor when considering 
a death sentence.
  Mr. Speaker, had this provision been in place just 4 years ago, it 
would have applied to the Boston bombing case when the bombers killed a 
local campus officer. It would also apply when State and local officers 
serve on joint law enforcement task forces.
  States all over the country are taking action to support law 
enforcement

[[Page 8062]]

through stronger protection for officers and stricter penalties for 
criminals, and I believe Congress should do the same.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I must again correct the gentleman on the 
other side. The underlying title 18 is the criminal code. It lists a 
series of crimes and a series of penalties, and then you have a list of 
aggravating factors, which make the death penalty mandatory if any of 
them are present. There are 16 aggravating factors. This is number 17 
and adds an aggravating factor; and when this aggravating factor is 
present, the death penalty is mandatory.
  Among the things this aggravating factor says, is ``attempt.'' So it 
is the first death penalty--for that matter, it is the first death 
penalty, mandatory or not, for an attempt, as opposed to an actual 
killing. Even if it weren't mandatory, we should not have a death 
penalty for an attempt. You should have a severe penalty, but a death 
penalty should be reserved for actual murder and such crimes, not for 
an attempt. Attempt is always punished more leniently than the actual 
accomplishment of the heinous act.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to correct my 
colleague. I guess we can do this all day, but I do actually have a 
copy of the criminal code in front of me, and I would refer him to 18 
U.S.C. section 3591(b)(2), where it lists very specifically and 
expressly that attempts to kill are listed in the sentence of death.
  I refer you to that provision, and it is not mandatory. The jury can 
determine whether the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating 
factors, or in the absence of any mitigating factors, whether the 
aggravating factors alone justify a death sentence.
  So I feel that we are engaging in an exercise of semantics, but it is 
important that we don't misportray what this bill would accomplish and 
what it would do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the men and women 
of law enforcement whose selfless service to a noble cause fills me 
with humble gratitude.
  Being a law enforcement officer requires more than training. It 
requires sacrifice, devotion, integrity, and honor. Most importantly, 
it requires an unshakeable faith in the value and importance in the 
rule of law.
  What keeps our civil society from a descent into lawlessness and 
chaos? What separates civilization from savagery?
  It is a thin blue line--these men and women of law enforcement, who 
give their blood, sweat, tears, and sometimes their lives in order to 
protect and serve communities; who make the country a safer place, one 
street, one neighborhood, and one community at a time.
  As a society, our laws enshrine freedom, our security, and our 
liberty. They uphold America's promise of innate fairness. But for 
their service and devotion to our great Nation, our law enforcement 
officers are often criticized and scorned by some they serve. Yet, 
through it all, they continue to serve and protect.
  Too often these brave men and women are targets of violence, which is 
why I support the Thin Blue Line Act. An attack on law enforcement is 
an attack on the freedom of the United States of America, and it cannot 
be tolerated.
  Mr. Speaker, some have spoken out in opposition to the death penalty 
in this discussion, and they would say only God can judge. And while 
that is true, certainly the United States Government can do a better 
job setting up the meeting.
  So today I rise in support of heroes, and I hope my colleagues will 
do the same.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from 
Michigan for his yielding and for his leadership and for the pleasure 
that I have in working on the Judiciary Committee. Let me thank the 
chairman and Members as well, particularly working on the Crime, 
Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, of which 
this underlying bill comes to the floor on.
  This is a very important week, Mr. Speaker. It is National Police 
Week. A number of our constituents have been here, and we have had the 
opportunity to hear from a number of outstanding leaders: a sheriff 
from Los Angeles County; the sheriff from South Carolina; the police 
department leader from Houston, Texas; and the head of the FOP.
  So I think that we have had a good week in terms of hearings in the 
Judiciary Committee, and certainly this past Monday we honored those 
who tragically ascended to the memorial wall where we honor police from 
across the Nation.
  So I think it is important to put on the record that none of us, I 
would hope--I certainly don't--take a back seat to the respect, 
admiration, and the work that we do to keep our law enforcement and 
first responders safe. We commend them for their service as we continue 
to work on police and community working together.
  We also are grateful for those who are engaged in enhanced community 
relations as well as working with diverse communities.
  So let me acknowledge individuals from Houston that we have lost: 
Assistant Deputy Chief Clint Greenwood; Officer Richard K. Martin; 
Harris County Sheriff's Deputy Darren Goforth.
  We lost Jerry Ronald Walker of Little Elm Police Department.
  Then officers who died in Dallas: Officer Brent Thompson, Sergeant 
Michael Smith, Senior Corporal Lorne Ahrens, Officer Patricio 
Zamarripa, and Officer Michael Krol.
  I have had the chance to work with a number of chiefs of police, 
including Chief Lee P. Brown, one of the first police chiefs in Houston 
that I was able to work with as I began to engage publicly; Chief 
McClelland; now Chief Acevedo; and chiefs in-between.
  I particularly thank them for working with the community during 
stressful times, during times when violence was evidenced out in the 
community; not against police, but against communities--keeping the 
peace, if you will, as we tried to work together.
  So I support policies that are necessary, and I certainly support the 
idea of protecting our law enforcement. Of course, the underlying bill 
has that provision and indicates a protection of law enforcement 
officers. In actuality, it provides the opportunity for the protection 
as well as the utilization of the death penalty.
  This particular legislation continues to want to add aggravating 
factors, making it 17. If we had a hearing and if we were able to 
determine that this would actually have an impact, there would be 
reason to at least have a vigorous debate over whether there is an 
impact or not.
  But H.R. 115 is a duplicative bill and unnecessary because under 18 
U.S.C. 3592(c), there already exists mechanisms that achieve the goal 
of punishing by death a defendant who kills a law enforcement officer 
or first responder.
  First of all, it should be stated that the bill is based upon 
underlying offenses, drug offenses. There is a whole myriad of actual 
laws that are Federal criminal offenses, and if a death occurs under 
that Federal criminal offense, then you are eligible for the death 
penalty.
  Let me cite as an example the Boston Marathon terrorists act and the 
killing of the MIT officer who was killed. The Federal prosecutor was 
able to take that case to the Federal court and to pursue a death 
penalty because it was pursuant to a terrorist act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hill). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. The most heinous tragedy of those who were lost in

[[Page 8063]]

9/11, the mourning of firefighters, first responders, and law 
enforcement who lost their lives, certainly there is no doubt that that 
was a heinous terrorist act. If those terrorists had lived--there would 
have been firefighters and first responders included, and their deaths 
would have been, in essence, tried under the Federal death penalty; and 
those heinous perpetrators would have been tried, given capital 
punishment, if the jury had convicted them--there probably was no 
doubt--and ultimately might have seen their end through the exercise of 
the death penalty.
  That is, I think, clearing up that we are standing here adding any 
measure of difference to this particular legislation. If the act falls 
under Federal criminal laws, you can be, or the murderer of you can be, 
in fact, charged with a Federal death penalty.
  On the other hand, if you go into a burning building and, 
unfortunately, the owner of the building--or there is some unfortunate 
incident and you are shot as a firefighter, you do not fall under this 
statute. That is not a Federal offense, but you can fall under your 
State death penalty cases.
  Why would we be concerned about this idea of additional death 
penalties?
  Let me cite for you the case of Buck v. Davis, where the death 
penalty verdict was based merely on whether the defendant is likely to 
commit acts of violence in the future, and a psychologist opined that 
being Black did increase the probability. The trial court reasoned 
that: ``introduction of any mention of race was de minimis.'' In other 
words, insignificant, completely ignoring that the largest number of 
individuals that go to their death are African Americans. Thank 
goodness for the Supreme Court and the reasoning of Chief Justice 
Roberts.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Justice Roberts stated for the court in reversing 
the lower court: ``Some toxins can be deadly in small doses.''
  Likewise, in the Gregg v. Georgia case, decided after Furman, the 
court held that if death penalty is mandatory, such that no permission 
for mercy is granted, and where capital punishment is based on 
characteristics of the offender, then it is unconstitutional and 
``arbitrary and capricious.''
  The underlying bill has mandatory death penalties. It will cover 
first responders if they are killed pursuant to Federal crimes. We are 
standing here, not adding anything to the underlying bill. First 
responders are protected. Law enforcement are protected.
  I would hate to see any of them lose their life, but under a Federal 
crime, their case will be tried as a death penalty case. In other 
instances, it will be tried by State law. We respect these heroes and 
sheroes. It is shameful if we use that to add another aggravating 
element to the death penalty, and continue to discriminate based on 
race.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to first acknowledge and commend the law 
enforcement community throughout our country that work tirelessly to 
help protect and serve our communities.
  I especially want to thank Chief Acevedo for his leadership, 
commitment to Houston, and for his vision on unifying communities 
through police relations with the people they take an oath to serve and 
protect.
  As we celebrate police week, I would like to take a moment to thank 
and honor all the officers that served selflessly and died in the line 
of duty.
  Especially, Assistant Deputy Chief Clinton Greenwood of Harris County 
Constable's Office-Precinct 3, TX, died on 4/3/17;
  Officer Richard K. Martin of Houston Police Dept., died on 5/18/15;
  Deputy Sheriff of Harris County Sheriff office, Darren Goforth, 8/28/
15;
  And Detective Jerry Ronald Walker of Little Elm Police Dept., TX, 
died 1/17/17 and the five officers killed in Dallas, TX on 7/7/16--
Brent Thompson, Sgt. Michael Smith, Sr. Corporal Lorne Ahrens, Officer 
Patrick Zamarripa, and Officer Michael Krol.
  Additionally, I would like to acknowledge Houston's former Chief, Lee 
P. Brown who laid the strong foundation for HPD's strong community 
liaison practices with all communities; Harris County Sheriff Ed 
Gonzalez; Alan Rosen, Harris County Constable, Precinct 1 and all of 
our other men and women in uniform.
  I know personally the level of stress and challenges posed, because I 
have many friends that have and are currently serving my Congressional 
district in Houston and our country very well and with great 
distinction.
  I support our policies that are necessary, so long as we are doing so 
with fairness, in accordance with our Constitution, and in a manner 
that is not duplicative of statutory measures already in place.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 imposes the death penalty for the killing or 
targeting of law enforcement officers, firefighters, and first 
responders as a 17th aggravated factor for homicide.
  Although this bill is presented as a proposal to protect police 
officers and first responders, it does much more.
  H.R. 115 is duplicative and unnecessary because under 18 U.S.C. 
3592(c), there already exists mechanisms that achieve the goal of 
punishing by death, a defendant who kills a law enforcement officer or 
first responders.
  Prosecutors are already armed with prosecutorial discretion to seek 
capital punishment in death penalty cases as demonstrated in the cases 
below:
  U.S. v. Ronell Wilson--2 NY City detectives were killed during a gun 
sting operation. Defendant was sentenced to death.
  U.S. v. Donzell McCauley--a Washington, DC police officer was killed 
and defendant received a sentence of life without parole.
  U.S. v. Kenneth Wilk--a deputy sheriff was killed while attempting to 
serve a search warrant; defendant was sentenced to life without parole.
  U.S. v. Kenneth Barrett--a state law enforcement officer was killed 
during a drug raid, defendant was sentenced to death.
  LaShawn Casey, an undercover police officer was killed in a 
carjacking related to a drug transaction; a capital jury sentenced the 
defendant to life without the possibility of parole.
  These cases illustrate that prosecutors have the discretion under the 
current law to seek the death penalty. By adding a 17th aggravated 
factor under the vague, arbitrary and capricious language of H.R. 115, 
we are heading down a dangerous path.
  Please take note that the death toll of firefighters/first responders 
reported by the National Fire Protection Association illustrates a 
drastic decline in deaths overall, most of which were fire and accident 
related.
  The statistics available do not support the need for this duplicative 
measure in H.R. 115.
  This bill does nothing to protect our law enforcement or to ensure 
public safety; instead, it raises constitutional questions as to its 
validity because ``targeting law enforcement'' is substantially vague 
language that will subject many innocent lives to death, based purely 
on their desire to exercise their First Amendment rights about the 
well-documented racial disparity in treatment throughout our 
communities.
  We must ensure that we do not create legislation of broad scope and 
vagueness that will have a chilling effect on an insular group.
  H.R. 115 is laced with a discriminatory effect that will trigger 
strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment, and open the gateway for 
draconian habeas laws.
  This bill will create a slippery slope, further adding to recent 
turbulence caused by Attorney General Jeff Session's memo and 
destroying whatever trust remains between law enforcement and 
communities.
  This bill sends troubling messages around the world about how we view 
and measure life in America in this 21st century.
  It is time to get serious about this epidemic and not hide behind 
vague language because `all' lives matter, blue, black, brown, white.
  Mr. Speaker, while some may say that any adverse effects of the bill 
before us are de minimis, and thus, will not severely impact the racial 
disparity found in the use of the death penalty, it is neither the 
amount of words in this bill nor the amount of time used to utter them 
that is significant; rather, it is the discriminatory effect that will 
result in communities disproportionately impacted by the death penalty.
  Let us take for example, the case of Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. __ 
(2017) where the death penalty verdict was based merely on `whether 
defendant is likely to commit acts of violence in the future' and a 
psychologist opined that being black did increase the probability. The 
trial court reasoned that ``introduction of any mention of race was de 
minimis,'' in other words, insignificant.
  As Chief Justice John Roberts stated for the Court in reversing the 
lower court; ``Some toxins can be deadly in small doses.''
  Likewise, in Gregg v. GA, which was decided after Furman (invalidated 
death penalty across the country), the court held if death

[[Page 8064]]

penalty is mandatory, such that no permission for mercy is granted, and 
where capital punishment is based on characteristics of the offender, 
then it is unconstitutional and ``arbitrary and capricious.''
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 is extremely deadly because it is arbitrary and 
capricious, imposing the death penalty based solely on the status of 
the victim.
  The death penalty is already available both at the state and federal 
level and is reserved for matters of extraordinary circumstances.
  While we want to ensure that law enforcement officers, firefighters 
and first responders received protection as they protect our 
communities, we cannot and should not attempt to do so by weighing the 
worth of lives and arbitrarily impose the death penalty based on our 
measuring sticks of who should live and who should die.
  H.R. 115 will undoubtedly contribute to the continuation of well-
documented and pervasive racial disparities in the imposition of the 
death penalty.
  Since 1976 only 20 white prisoners have been executed for the murder 
of an African American victim, while an alarming 286 African American 
prisoners have been executed for the death of white victims, and 42% of 
African Americans currently remain on death row.
  Death penalty generally, has been criticized over the years by legal 
scholars and by Supreme Court Justices who have opined in several 
instances, that `the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment, which 
prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.'
  Even in 1958, when the Court first explicitly spoke about the death 
penalty as having constitutional challenges, it said in Trop v. Dulles, 
``the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause must draw 
its meaning from the `evolving standards of decency that mark the 
progress of a maturing society' rather than from its original 
meaning.''
  Mr. Speaker, there is no argument that we have evolved and matured 
significantly since we first implemented the death penalty in the 1600s 
and thus, we must evaluate cautiously, laws that seek to further 
advance this flawed, astronomically costly and unjust practice.
  Tax payers currently spend $740,000 for cases without the death 
penalty, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 
million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 
more per year than a prisoner in general population.
  Capital punishment does not work; it is discriminatory and is used 
disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, 
ethnic and religious communities.
  Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 
82% of all executions have occurred in the South (37% in Texas alone), 
which contributed to the United States status as one of five countries 
in the world to account for the most executions in 2012.
  FBI data has shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent and in 
fact, 14 states without capital punishment in 2008, had homicide rates 
at or below the national rate.
  Taking another life does not stop violence.
  Like mandatory minimums, public opinion for the death penalty is 
currently at its lowest with a 42% opposition, evidenced in a 2016 Pew 
Research report, which found that the U.S. now dropped to number seven 
worldwide in countries accountable for the most executions.
  Mr. Speaker, over two-thirds of the world's countries have abolished 
the death penalty either in law or practice, and the U.S. is the only 
Western country that still uses the death penalty.
  Even family members of murder victims and other individuals who have 
witnessed live executions of death row inmates, particularly, in the 
recent botched and questionable executions, have called for a repeal of 
this practice and ask instead for alternative sentencing.
  In fact the death penalty solves nothing, and may even perpetuate the 
suffering of the parents, children, or siblings left behind.
  We do not need to expand the use of the death penalty where public 
opinion is at its lowest, but instead, implement sound and practical 
legislation that will save lives of our officers and the people they 
serve.
  This measure is what public opinion suggests.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  There are two important very brief points for correction. I respect 
the gentlewoman from Texas, but she just suggested to us that this 
would be a duplicative law; thus, unnecessary because, as she cited the 
Federal criminal code, she says that law enforcement officers are 
already covered by the law.
  However, I would refer her attention to 18 U.S.C. Section 
3592(c)(14), and then subsection (d), where it clearly says in a 
capital letter, ``a Federal law enforcement officer.''
  So it is important to note that the existing Federal law does not 
cover State and local officers, which this bill would and, thereby, is 
one of the things that necessitates this action.
  Also, I want to point out, respectfully, that that same criminal 
code--just one-page later in section 3593, also in title 18, subsection 
(f)--says: ``Special Precaution to Ensure Against Discrimination.''
  We know that Federal law already provides that a jury must 
specifically find that a defendant's race, color, sex, religion, 
national origin, or that of the victim, is not a factor in their 
decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, last November, Canonsburg, 
Pennsylvania, Police Officer Scott Bashioum was shot and killed as he 
and his partner responded to a domestic disturbance call. They were 
ambushed as they approached the home. Officer Bashioum was also a 
United States Air Force veteran. He retired as a senior master sergeant 
with 29 years of service.
  He will be remembered for his service both in the Canonsburg 
community as a police officer, and to the country as a veteran.
  Mr. Speaker, when our brothers and sisters are killed in the line of 
duty, we can memorialize them by building monuments. We can remember 
them by renaming buildings. We can support them by raising funds to 
help their widows and their orphaned children.

                              {time}  1530

  But most importantly, we can make sure we do all we can so that they 
return home at the end of their watch and that we protect their right 
to raise their children and their children's right to be raised by 
them. The community needs to know that we do all we can to make sure 
that thin blue line does not break and that thin blue line does not 
bend. We need to work together as a nation to protect those who protect 
the safety of all of us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, every day, courageous men and women in 
America's law enforcement leave the safety of their homes to go into 
volatile situations, not knowing whether or not they will even return 
home safely. These brave police officers and first responders have 
dedicated their lives to ensuring our safety, as well as the safety of 
our neighborhoods and communities. I honor these fearless men and women 
and recognize the sacrifice they and their families make.
  But merely saying thank you is not enough. The Thin Blue Line Act 
will protect law enforcement officials by giving harsher penalties to 
criminals targeting the police and first responders who put their lives 
on the line daily to protect and defend us.
  It is my duty and privilege to support efforts that give our 
dedicated law enforcement officials the best possible chance of coming 
home safely every day. Mr. Speaker, this is how I can show my 
gratitude. Each House Member should join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 10 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana has 15\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that we are all in 
support of the protection of our officers. I think that there is no 
competition on sympathy or wanting to appropriately assure that those 
who go up against our officers in a vile and violent manner would be 
brought to justice.
  I think the point on race disparity as relates to the death penalty 
is relevant. It is about life. But I want to make it very clear: Under 
this underlying bill, our officers who are State

[[Page 8065]]

police officers are protected already, including the example that I 
used about the MIT officer in the Boston Marathon terrorist act. It is 
if you are in the furtherance of a Federal crime. The bill itself is 
all Federal. You have to be engaged in an act that is a Federal crime.
  Clearly, if the terrorists on 9/11 had lived, the cases of the 
firefighters who lost their lives certainly would have been tried--
those cases of the tragic, heinous deaths of firefighters who are our 
friends, and certainly are my friends--under the Federal death penalty 
law.
  In the case of U.S. v. Kenneth Barrett, a State law enforcement 
officer was killed during a drug raid. That is one of the underlying 
offenses. The defendant was sentenced to death.
  In the case of Lashaun Casey, an undercover police officer was killed 
in a carjacking related to a drug transaction. A capital jury decided 
to sentence the defendant to life without the possibility of parole, 
but it was a capital jury.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so I want to honor them, too, but I also want to 
show the disparities.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the very valuable point that Chief 
Justice Roberts made in the particular case of Buck v. Davis and the 
statistical documentation of the disparities in the death penalty 
cases. We cannot ignore it.
  Chief Justice Roberts stated before the Court, in reversing the lower 
court, ``some toxins can be deadly in small doses,'' when the district 
court wanted to ignore or diminish the fact that race was involved in 
this case.
  A psychologist had the audacity to say that being Black did increase 
the probability that you would commit an act of violence prospectively. 
How sad is that?
  We are saddened by the death of our officers, but we are already 
protecting them and the first responders. Pursuant to a Federal 
criminal act, the prosecutor, at their discretion, can charge the 
defendant with a death penalty case.
  I just hope my colleagues will recognize that we are not divided in 
our love, affection, and respect for the men and women that serve as 
first responders and law enforcement throughout this Nation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to speak on the floor today not only in 
support of H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, but also in honor of all 
of our brave men and women who put their lives on the line every single 
day to keep our communities safe.
  I am the son of a first responder myself. My father was critically 
injured and permanently disabled in the line of duty. I know these 
sacrifices very well.
  This country owes our law enforcement officers an extraordinary debt 
of gratitude for the many services they provide. Our Nation simply 
would not be what it is today were it not for the sacrifices of all 
those who take the oath to protect and to serve us.
  The Thin Blue Line Act is simple: It seeks to expand on certain 
penalties to also include the murder or targeting of a State or local 
law enforcement officer.
  Virtually every American--anyone of good conscience--is shocked and 
disgusted by the recent trend of our local law enforcement heroes being 
targeted for violent acts.
  I am sad to report that, in my home State of Louisiana, we have been 
named the most dangerous State in America for law enforcement officers. 
It is shocking. It is true. It saddens all of us. The Thin Blue Line 
Act is a commonsense response to this epidemic that we are seeing 
across the culture.
  We thank and we stand with our first responders back home in 
Louisiana and all across our Nation. Those dedicated public servants 
never question and never hesitate in the face of danger. As many people 
have analogized this, we consider them our sheepdogs. They protect our 
communities from the wolves of our society who prey upon the innocent.
  To honor those sacrifices, I am proud, today, to support this 
legislation on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter addressed to Mr. 
Goodlatte and myself, and I want to read the first paragraph of it.
  ``Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers:
  ``We are current and former law enforcement leaders and officers from 
jurisdictions across the country. We ask you to oppose H.R. 115, the 
Thin Blue Line Act. We do so because we believe this bill will do 
little to protect the lives of police and first responders and will 
drive away resources proven to be effective at protecting law 
enforcement and preventing and solving crime.''

                                                   April 26, 2017.
     Re Law Enforcement Opposition to H.R. 115.

     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: We are 
     current and former law enforcement leaders and officers from 
     jurisdictions across the country. We ask you to oppose H.R. 
     115, the Thin Blue Line Act. We do so because we believe this 
     bill will do little to protect the lives of police and first 
     responders and will drive away resources proven to be 
     effective at protecting law enforcement and preventing and 
     solving crime.
       We are all too familiar with the risks that local, state, 
     and federal law enforcement and first responders take each 
     day to prevent, investigate, and prosecute crime. In fact; 
     some of us have served alongside colleagues who were killed 
     in the line of duty. We understand the impulse to threaten 
     those who have murdered our fellow officers with the death 
     penalty, and some of us have experienced that desire 
     directly.
       But we also know that the death penalty, as it currently 
     operates, is poor public policy. It is ineffective, 
     expensive, and can make irrevocable mistakes. It is also used 
     disparately and often on vulnerable populations, which 
     undermines our ability to create effective and trusted 
     relationships with those in the community on whose support 
     our success depends. That is why, while some of us may 
     philosophically support the death penalty, we all oppose its 
     expansion in practice--even under the auspices of supporting 
     law enforcement.
       Each of us understands that it takes many and varied 
     resources to keep our communities safe. We need strong 
     partnerships with local government and the communities we 
     serve. We need well-functioning and modern systems to 
     collect, store and process police activities, crime data, and 
     evidence. We need equipment to protect and assist officers as 
     they perform their duties. One tool virtually never seen on 
     our list of needs is the death penalty.
       In short, we believe H.R. 115 is an unnecessary expansion 
     of an already flawed and ineffective policy. We encourage you 
     to oppose this bill and instead support measures that promote 
     the overall health, safety, and welfare of law enforcement 
     and the communities we have been sworn to protect.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
       James Abbott, Chief, West Orange (NJ) Police Department 
     (1997-Present).
       John Breckenridge, Officer, Manchester (NH) Police 
     Department (ret.).
       James Davidsaver, Emergency Management Director, Lancaster 
     County, Nebraska; former captain, Lincoln (NE) Police 
     Department.
       Neill Franklin, Baltimore Police Department (2000-2010); 
     Maryland State Police (1976-1999).
       Gerald Galloway, Chief, Southern Pines (NC) Police 
     Department (1988-2005); Past President, North Carolina Chiefs 
     of Police Association; former Executive Committee member, 
     IACP.
       Terence Inch, Professor of Criminal Justice, York College 
     of Pennsylvania; Former Commissioner of Police, Hellam 
     Township (PA); Former Detective Chief Inspector, New Scotland 
     Yard, London.
       George Kain, Ph.D, Police commissioner, Ridgefield, CT; 
     Division of Justice and Law Administration at Western 
     Connecticut State University.
       Douglas Orr, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor, Champlain College 
     (2009-present); Adjunct Professor, Gonzaga University (2006-
     present); Detective, Spokane (WA) Police Department (1996-
     present); Corporal, Idaho State Police (1992-1996); Patrol 
     Officer, Greenville (SC) Police Department (1987-1992).
       Norman Stamper, Chief, Seattle Police Department (1994-
     2000); San Diego Police Department (1966-1994).
       James Trainum, Detective, Washington Metropolitan Police 
     Department (1983-2010).

[[Page 8066]]

       David Walchak, Deputy Assistant Director (Ret.) FBI (2000-
     2004), Sr. Advisor FBI (1999-2000), Sr. Policy Advisor USDOJ 
     COPS Office (1997-1999), Chief of Police (Ret.) Concord, NH 
     (1975-1997), President, International Association of Chiefs 
     of Police (1995-1996).

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like all of my colleagues to 
recognize that, during our observation of National Police Week, we are 
reminded again of the importance of ensuring that law enforcement 
officers are safe so they can carry out their duties effectively.
  These kinds of ``enhancement'' bills like H.R. 115 do nothing to 
invest in officer wellness or to address the everyday challenges faced 
by police officers or first responders. Moreover, they are redundant, 
especially because there are laws that protect police officers and 
first responders from violence in all 50 States.
  Rather than advancing a bill that amounts to an empty gesture, that 
is damaging, at best, this Congress should focus on real reform 
measures that will protect law enforcement, first responders, and their 
communities. Providing duplicative protections to law enforcement 
simply cannot counterbalance the impact of fundamentally flawed death 
penalty legislation.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard many arguments from the other side of the 
aisle in opposition to this legislation. Of course, they began by 
saying how much they support the men and women of law enforcement. But 
let's consider these arguments and decide for ourselves in closing 
here.
  First, we heard that the legislation is duplicative. It is not. In 
fact, it closes a loophole that currently exists in Federal law. There 
is currently no provision in our Federal law stating that the killing 
of a State or local law enforcement officer shall be an aggravating 
factor for capital punishment.
  Next, we heard that this legislation is unnecessary. It is not, 
unless you believe that State and local law enforcement officers are 
not somehow entitled to the same legal protections currently enjoyed by 
Federal officers. That is what this legislation would correct.
  A third argument we heard is that this is a messaging bill. It is 
clearly not that. Though it may be true that this provision would apply 
in a limited number of cases because the vast majority of capital cases 
are prosecuted at the State level, this bill inserts a provision in 
Federal law that will be vitally important in the cases where it would 
be applicable, such as in the Boston bombing.
  On that point, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have noted that Federal law 
already contains provisions to ensure criminals who carry out heinous 
acts such as the Boston terrorism attacks are dealt with appropriately. 
That is, of course, true, but saying that ignores the suffering of 
families of fallen police officers who have lost their lives rushing to 
aid after such an attack.
  It also ignores the sacrifice of law enforcement officers themselves, 
for example. Officer Sean Collier of the MIT Police Department is one 
example. He was murdered by the Tsarnaev brothers during their flight 
following their horrific act.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, what these arguments reveal is simply that our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose this bill because it 
amends a Federal death penalty statute.
  We would point out, in response to the letter that was just entered 
into the Record, that we have received support letters that are already 
in the Record from numerous law enforcement organizations, including 
the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America, 
the National Association of Police Organizations, and the Sergeants 
Benevolent Association of the NYPD, among many, many others across the 
country who believe that this is an appropriate step for us to take 
today.
  In light of all that, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
reject the arguments of the other side, to support the men and women 
who comprise the thin blue line between order and chaos in our society, 
and to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 115, 
the Thin Blue Line Act. This bill unnecessarily expands the federal 
death penalty, and does not further the laudable goal of bringing 
justice to the law enforcement officers who make the ultimate sacrifice 
for our safety and security.
  The United States is in the minority of countries that still use the 
death penalty, and Americans' opposition to it has increased in recent 
decades, particularly as social scientists better understand the 
disparate effects of the death penalty on minority populations. A 
sentence of death is disproportionately used in cases involving 
defendants of color. According to U.S. Department of Justice, in 2011, 
41.7 percent of all death row inmates were African American, despite 
only making up 13.1 percent of the population. Furthermore, since 1973, 
159 people who were sentenced to death were later exonerated. There is 
no doubt that innocent individuals have been put to death in the United 
States--a fact that must not be ignored in a country that values 
justice under the law.
  I greatly respect and appreciate our law enforcement community. Local 
police, firefighters, and first responders put their lives on the line 
every single day to protect people in Oregon and across the country. 
Those criminals who target and murder police officers have no place in 
our society. Nothing in current law prevents those individuals from 
being prosecuted to the highest extent of the law, and to receive a 
sentence of death. Under current law, there are 16 aggravating factors 
that can be considered during criminal sentencing, and the federal 
government can allege the targeting or killing of a law enforcement 
officer--federal, state, or local--as an aggravating factor when 
considering the death penalty. This bill creates a 17th aggravating 
factor that is duplicative of existing law.
  I will continue to do all I can to support our law enforcement 
officers, particularly the admirable men and women who serve our 
communities in northwest Oregon. This bill, however, is an unnecessary 
expansion of the death penalty, and I therefore cannot support it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 323, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________