Protect and Serve Act of 2018
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Jackson Lee), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve 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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source