[House Report 115-116]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-116
======================================================================
THIN BLUE LINE ACT
_______
May 11, 2017.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 115]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred 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, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 3
Committee Votes.................................................. 3
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 6
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 6
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 7
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 7
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 8
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 8
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 8
Dissenting Views................................................. 13
The Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
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.''.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 115, the ``Thin Blue Line Act,'' 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.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Current law provides a list of sixteen aggravating factors
a jury is required to consider when deciding whether a death
sentence is warranted for a federal crime.\1\ Forty-one Federal
offenses, or classes of offenses, are punishable by the death
penalty,\2\ and as of January 2017, there are 62 Federal
prisoners on death row.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\18 U.S.C. Sec. 3592(c).
\2\https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-
penalty?scid=29&did=192.
\3\https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-death-row-prisoners#list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aggravating factors in current law include: whether
death occurred while the defendant was committing one of a list
of specific offenses; 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; or whether the
victim was a ``high public official.''\4\ In this case, ``high
public official'' includes a litany of high-ranking public
persons, from the President to a foreign head of state to a
judge or law enforcement officer.\5\ Under 3592(14), the law
enforcement officers in question are required to be Federal
officers. There is no provision covering a defendant who kills
a state or local law enforcement officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\18 U.S.C. Sec. 3592(c)(1); (c)(6); (c)(9); (c)(14).
\5\18 U.S.C. Sec. 3592(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is likely that a provision covering a state or local law
enforcement officer would apply in a limited number of cases,
both because the vast majority of capital cases are prosecuted
at the state level, and because the circumstances where a
defendant killed a state or local law enforcement officer
during the commission of a Federal capital offense are probably
limited. However, in the cases in which it would apply, the
provision would be very important. For example, it would likely
apply in many terrorism cases, including the Boston bombing
case, where the Tsarnaev brothers killed an officer from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology during their flight
following the attack. It would likely also apply to a case
involving the death of a state or local law enforcement officer
who is serving as a member of a Federal task force (e.g., a
Joint Terrorism Task Force).
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R.
115.
Committee Consideration
On April 27, 2017, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill H.R. 115 favorably reported, with an
amendment, by a roll call vote of 19 to 12, a quorum being
present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 115.
1. An Amendment offered by Mr. Buck to clarify that the
aggravating factor established by the bill applies where the
victim was killed ``or targeted'' because of his or her status
as a police officer. Approved by a roll call vote of 12 to 11.
ROLLCALL NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...... X .......... ............
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....... X .......... ............
Mr. Smith (TX).................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Chabot (OH)................... X .......... ............
Mr. Issa (CA)..................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. King (IA)..................... X .......... ............
Mr. Franks (AZ)................... X .......... ............
Mr. Gohmert (TX).................. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Jordan (OH)................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Poe (TX)...................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)................. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Marino (PA)................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................... X .......... ............
Mr. Labrador (ID)................. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Farenthold (TX)............... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Collins (GA).................. X .......... ............
Mr. DeSantis (FL)................. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Buck (CO)..................... X .......... ............
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX)................ X .......... ............
Ms. Roby (AL)..................... X .......... ............
Mr. Gaetz (FL).................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Johnson (LA).................. X .......... ............
Mr. Biggs (AZ).................... X .......... ............
Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking .......... X ............
Member.
Mr. Nadler (NY)................... .......... X ............
Ms. Lofgren (CA).................. .......... X ............
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX).............. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Cohen (TN).................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Johnson (GA).................. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Deutch (FL)................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Gutierrez (IL)................ .......... .......... ............
Ms. Bass (CA)..................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Richmond (LA)................. .......... X ............
Mr. Jeffries (NY)................. .......... X ............
Mr. Cicilline (RI)................ .......... X ............
Mr. Swalwell (CA)................. .......... X ............
Mr. Lieu (CA)..................... .......... X ............
Mr. Raskin (MD)................... .......... X ............
Ms. Jayapal (WA).................. .......... X ............
Mr. Schneider (IL)................ .......... X ............
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 12 11 ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Motion by Mr. Sensenbrenner, to table the appeal of the
ruling of the chair that Richmond Amendment #5 is not germane.
Passed by a roll call vote of 16 to 15.
ROLLCALL NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...... X .......... ............
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....... X .......... ............
Mr. Smith (TX).................... X .......... ............
Mr. Chabot (OH)................... X .......... ............
Mr. Issa (CA)..................... X .......... ............
Mr. King (IA)..................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Franks (AZ)................... X .......... ............
Mr. Gohmert (TX).................. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Jordan (OH)................... X .......... ............
Mr. Poe (TX)...................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)................. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Marino (PA)................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................... X .......... ............
Mr. Labrador (ID)................. X .......... ............
Mr. Farenthold (TX)............... X .......... ............
Mr. Collins (GA).................. X .......... ............
Mr. DeSantis (FL)................. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Buck (CO)..................... X .......... ............
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX)................ X .......... ............
Ms. Roby (AL)..................... X .......... ............
Mr. Gaetz (FL).................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Johnson (LA).................. X .......... ............
Mr. Biggs (AZ).................... X .......... ............
Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking .......... X ............
Member.
Mr. Nadler (NY)................... .......... X ............
Ms. Lofgren (CA).................. .......... X ............
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX).............. .......... X ............
Mr. Cohen (TN).................... .......... X ............
Mr. Johnson (GA).................. .......... X ............
Mr. Deutch (FL)................... .......... X ............
Mr. Gutierrez (IL)................ .......... .......... ............
Ms. Bass (CA)..................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Richmond (LA)................. .......... X ............
Mr. Jeffries (NY)................. .......... X ............
Mr. Cicilline (RI)................ .......... X ............
Mr. Swalwell (CA)................. .......... X ............
Mr. Lieu (CA)..................... .......... X ............
Mr. Raskin (MD)................... .......... X ............
Ms. Jayapal (WA).................. .......... X ............
Mr. Schneider (IL)................ .......... X ............
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 16 15 ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Motion to report H.R. 115 favorably to the House. Agreed
to by a roll call vote of 19 to 12.
ROLLCALL NO. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...... X .......... ............
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....... X .......... ............
Mr. Smith (TX).................... X .......... ............
Mr. Chabot (OH)................... X .......... ............
Mr. Issa (CA)..................... X .......... ............
Mr. King (IA)..................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Franks (AZ)................... X .......... ............
Mr. Gohmert (TX).................. X .......... ............
Mr. Jordan (OH)................... X .......... ............
Mr. Poe (TX)...................... X .......... ............
Mr. Chaffetz (UT)................. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Marino (PA)................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................... X .......... ............
Mr. Labrador (ID)................. X .......... ............
Mr. Farenthold (TX)............... X .......... ............
Mr. Collins (GA).................. X .......... ............
Mr. DeSantis (FL)................. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Buck (CO)..................... X .......... ............
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX)................ X .......... ............
Ms. Roby (AL)..................... X .......... ............
Mr. Gaetz (FL).................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Johnson (LA).................. X .......... ............
Mr. Biggs (AZ).................... X .......... ............
Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking .......... X ............
Member.
Mr. Nadler (NY)................... .......... X ............
Ms. Lofgren (CA).................. .......... X ............
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX).............. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Cohen (TN).................... .......... X ............
Mr. Johnson (GA).................. .......... X ............
Mr. Deutch (FL)................... .......... .......... ............
Mr. Gutierrez (IL)................ .......... .......... ............
Ms. Bass (CA)..................... .......... X ............
Mr. Richmond (LA)................. .......... .......... ............
Mr. Jeffries (NY)................. .......... X ............
Mr. Cicilline (RI)................ .......... X ............
Mr. Swalwell (CA)................. X .......... ............
Mr. Lieu (CA)..................... .......... X ............
Mr. Raskin (MD)................... .......... X ............
Ms. Jayapal (WA).................. .......... X ............
Mr. Schneider (IL)................ .......... X ............
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 19 12 ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 115, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
May 8, 2017.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 115, the Thin Blue
Line Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese
who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 115--Thin Blue Line Act
H.R. 115 would require federal courts to consider the
murder, attempted murder, or targeting of a law enforcement
official or first responder as an aggravating circumstance when
determining if a death sentence is warranted for a convicted
felon.
Based on an analysis of information provided by the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts about the number of
trials the bill would probably affect, CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 115 would have no significant effect on the
federal budget.
Enacting H.R. 115 could affect direct spending and
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting
the bill could increase the number of federal appeals filed for
people who have been sentenced to death under the bill. Such
increased filings would increase the collection of court filing
fees, which are recorded in the budget as revenues; a portion
of which can be spent without further appropriation. However,
such fees are waived for defendants represented by public
defenders. Because the number of additional appeals is probably
very small and because the majority of such appeals would have
defendants with public defenders, CBO estimates that enacting
the bill would have an insignificant effect on revenues and
associated direct spending in any year; the net effect on the
deficit would be negligible.
CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not
increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of
the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 115 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Robert Reese.
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H.R. 115 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Committee estimates that H.R. 115 specifically directs
to be completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of
5 U.S.C. 551.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
115, the ``Thin Blue Line Act,'' 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.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 115 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title. This section cites the short title
of the legislation as the ``Thin Blue Line Act.''
Section 2. Aggravating Factors for Death Penalty. This
section adds the following provision to 18 U.S.C. 3592(c):
``(17) Killing 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--
(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.''.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 228--DEATH SENTENCE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3592. Mitigating and aggravating factors to be considered in
determining whether a sentence of death is
justified
(a) Mitigating Factors.--In determining whether a sentence of
death is to be imposed on a defendant, the finder of fact shall
consider any mitigating factor, including the following:
(1) Impaired capacity.--The defendant's capacity to
appreciate the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct
or to conform conduct to the requirements of law was
significantly impaired, regardless of whether the
capacity was so impaired as to constitute a defense to
the charge.
(2) Duress.--The defendant was under unusual and
substantial duress, regardless of whether the duress
was of such a degree as to constitute a defense to the
charge.
(3) Minor participation.--The defendant is punishable
as a principal in the offense, which was committed by
another, but the defendant's participation was
relatively minor, regardless of whether the
participation was so minor as to constitute a defense
to the charge.
(4) Equally culpable defendants.--Another defendant
or defendants, equally culpable in the crime, will not
be punished by death.
(5) No prior criminal record.--The defendant did not
have a significant prior history of other criminal
conduct.
(6) Disturbance.--The defendant committed the offense
under severe mental or emotional disturbance.
(7) Victim's consent.--The victim consented to the
criminal conduct that resulted in the victim's death.
(8) Other factors.--Other factors in the defendant's
background, record, or character or any other
circumstance of the offense that mitigate against
imposition of the death sentence.
(b) Aggravating Factors for Espionage and Treason.--In
determining whether a sentence of death is justified for an
offense described in section 3591(a)(1), the jury, or if there
is no jury, the court, shall consider each of the following
aggravating factors for which notice has been given and
determine which, if any, exist:
(1) Prior espionage or treason offense.--The
defendant has previously been convicted of another
offense involving espionage or treason for which a
sentence of either life imprisonment or death was
authorized by law.
(2) Grave risk to national security.--In the
commission of the offense the defendant knowingly
created a grave risk of substantial danger to the
national security.
(3) Grave risk of death.--In the commission of the
offense the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of
death to another person.
The jury, or if there is no jury, the court, may consider
whether any other aggravating factor for which notice has been
given exists.
(c) Aggravating Factors for Homicide.--In determining whether
a sentence of death is justified for an offense described in
section 3591(a)(2), the jury, or if there is no jury, the
court, shall consider each of the following aggravating factors
for which notice has been given and determine which, if any,
exist:
(1) Death during commission of another crime.--The
death, or injury resulting in death, occurred during
the commission or attempted commission of, or during
the immediate flight from the commission of, an offense
under section 32 (destruction of aircraft or aircraft
facilities), section 33 (destruction of motor vehicles
or motor vehicle facilities), section 37 (violence at
international airports), section 351 (violence against
Members of Congress, Cabinet officers, or Supreme Court
Justices), an offense under section 751 (prisoners in
custody of institution or officer), section 794
(gathering or delivering defense information to aid
foreign government), section 844(d) (transportation of
explosives in interstate commerce for certain
purposes), section 844(f) (destruction of Government
property by explosives), section 1118 (prisoners
serving life term), section 1201 (kidnapping), section
844(i) (destruction of property affecting interstate
commerce by explosives), section 1116 (killing or
attempted killing of diplomats), section 1203 (hostage
taking), section 1992 (wrecking trains), section 2245
(offenses resulting in death), section 2280 (maritime
violence), section 2281 (maritime platform violence),
section 2332 (terrorist acts abroad against United
States nationals), section 2332a (use of weapons of
mass destruction), or section 2381 (treason) of this
title, or section 46502 of title 49, United States Code
(aircraft piracy).
(2) Previous conviction of violent felony involving
firearm.--For any offense, other than an offense for
which a sentence of death is sought on the basis of
section 924(c), the defendant has previously been
convicted of a Federal or State offense punishable by a
term of imprisonment of more than 1 year, involving the
use or attempted or threatened use of a firearm (as
defined in section 921) against another person.
(3) Previous conviction of offense for which a
sentence of death or life imprisonment was
authorized.--The defendant has previously been
convicted of another Federal or State offense resulting
in the death of a person, for which a sentence of life
imprisonment or a sentence of death was authorized by
statute.
(4) Previous conviction of other serious offenses.--
The defendant has previously been convicted of 2 or
more Federal or State offenses, punishable by a term of
imprisonment of more than 1 year, committed on
different occasions, involving the infliction of, or
attempted infliction of, serious bodily injury or death
upon another person.
(5) Grave risk of death to additional persons.--The
defendant, in the commission of the offense, or in
escaping apprehension for the violation of the offense,
knowingly created a grave risk of death to 1 or more
persons in addition to the victim of the offense.
(6) Heinous, cruel, or depraved manner of committing
offense.--The defendant committed the offense in an
especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner in that
it involved torture or serious physical abuse to the
victim.
(7) Procurement of offense by payment.--The defendant
procured the commission of the offense by payment, or
promise of payment, of anything of pecuniary value.
(8) Pecuniary gain.--The defendant committed the
offense as consideration for the receipt, or in the
expectation of the receipt, of anything of pecuniary
value.
(9) Substantial planning and premeditation.--The
defendant committed the offense after substantial
planning and premeditation to cause the death of a
person or commit an act of terrorism.
(10) Conviction for two felony drug offenses.--The
defendant has previously been convicted of 2 or more
State or Federal offenses punishable by a term of
imprisonment of more than one year, committed on
different occasions, involving the distribution of a
controlled substance.
(11) Vulnerability of victim.--The victim was
particularly vulnerable due to old age, youth, or
infirmity.
(12) Conviction for serious federal drug offenses.--
The defendant had previously been convicted of
violating title II or III of the Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 for which a
sentence of 5 or more years may be imposed or had
previously been convicted of engaging in a continuing
criminal enterprise.
(13) Continuing criminal enterprise involving drug
sales to minors.--The defendant committed the offense
in the course of engaging in a continuing criminal
enterprise in violation of section 408(c) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848(c)), and that
violation involved the distribution of drugs to persons
under the age of 21 in violation of section 418 of that
Act (21 U.S.C. 859).
(14) High public officials.--The defendant committed
the offense against--
(A) the President of the United States, the
President-elect, the Vice President, the Vice
President-elect, the Vice President-designate,
or, if there is no Vice President, the officer
next in order of succession to the office of
the President of the United States, or any
person who is acting as President under the
Constitution and laws of the United States;
(B) a chief of state, head of government, or
the political equivalent, of a foreign nation;
(C) a foreign official listed in section
1116(b)(3)(A), if the official is in the United
States on official business; or
(D) a Federal public servant who is a judge,
a law enforcement officer, or an employee of a
United States penal or correctional
institution--
(i) while he or she is 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 servant.
For purposes of this subparagraph, a ``law
enforcement officer'' is a public servant
authorized by law or by a Government agency or
Congress to conduct or engage in the
prevention, investigation, or prosecution or
adjudication of an offense, and includes those
engaged in corrections, parole, or probation
functions.
(15) Prior conviction of sexual assault or child
molestation.--In the case of an offense under chapter
109A (sexual abuse) or chapter 110 (sexual abuse of
children), the defendant has previously been convicted
of a crime of sexual assault or crime of child
molestation.
(16) Multiple killings or attempted killings.--The
defendant intentionally killed or attempted to kill
more than one person in a single criminal episode.
(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 jury, or if there is no jury, the court, may consider
whether any other aggravating factor for which notice has been
given exists.
(d) Aggravating Factors for Drug Offense Death Penalty.--In
determining whether a sentence of death is justified for an
offense described in section 3591(b), the jury, or if there is
no jury, the court, shall consider each of the following
aggravating factors for which notice has been given and
determine which, if any, exist:
(1) Previous conviction of offense for which a
sentence of death or life imprisonment was
authorized.--The defendant has previously been
convicted of another Federal or State offense resulting
in the death of a person, for which a sentence of life
imprisonment or death was authorized by statute.
(2) Previous conviction of other serious offenses.--
The defendant has previously been convicted of two or
more Federal or State offenses, each punishable by a
term of imprisonment of more than one year, committed
on different occasions, involving the importation,
manufacture, or distribution of a controlled substance
(as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) or the infliction of, or attempted
infliction of, serious bodily injury or death upon
another person.
(3) Previous serious drug felony conviction.--The
defendant has previously been convicted of another
Federal or State offense involving the manufacture,
distribution, importation, or possession of a
controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) for which a
sentence of five or more years of imprisonment was
authorized by statute.
(4) Use of firearm.--In committing the offense, or in
furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise of
which the offense was a part, the defendant used a
firearm or knowingly directed, advised, authorized, or
assisted another to use a firearm to threaten,
intimidate, assault, or injure a person.
(5) Distribution to persons under 21.--The offense,
or a continuing criminal enterprise of which the
offense was a part, involved conduct proscribed by
section 418 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
859) which was committed directly by the defendant.
(6) Distribution near schools.--The offense, or a
continuing criminal enterprise of which the offense was
a part, involved conduct proscribed by section 419 of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 860) which was
committed directly by the defendant.
(7) Using minors in trafficking.--The offense, or a
continuing criminal enterprise of which the offense was
a part, involved conduct proscribed by section 420 of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 861) which was
committed directly by the defendant.
(8) Lethal adulterant.--The offense involved the
importation, manufacture, or distribution of a
controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), mixed with
a potentially lethal adulterant, and the defendant was
aware of the presence of the adulterant.
The jury, or if there is no jury, the court, may consider
whether any other aggravating factor for which notice has been
given exists.
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
Though troubled and saddened by the recent attacks on law
enforcement officials, we 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 federal death penalty. As demonstrated by the robust
discussion of the amendments proposed to this legislation
during the Committee's markup, the bill is both unnecessary and
constitutionally problematic. The failure to hold a hearing on
death penalty legislation also sets a troubling precedent given
the many legal and policy concerns present in capital
sentencing.
In recognition of the serious concerns raised by this
legislation, organizations committed to the protection of civil
rights and civil liberties have written letters in opposition,
particularly noting 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 serve.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Letter Opposing
H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act of 2017, April 27, 2017. See also
Letter to Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, Opposing H.R.
115, the Thin Blue Line Act of 2017, April 26, 2017 (signed by 10
organizations, including the ACLU, NAACP, Sentencing Project,
Constitution Project and National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers and five additional faith organizations); Letter to Chairman
Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, Law Enforcement Opposition to
H.R. 115, April 26, 2017 (signed by members of Public Safety Officials
on the Death Penalty) and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
Letter Opposing H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act of 2017, April 27,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons and those discussed below, we
respectfully dissent and urge our colleagues to oppose this
legislation.
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
H.R. 115 would amend the federal criminal code to expand
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 intended to narrowly define the group
of offenders who are eligible for the death penalty by
providing specific factors that judges and juries should
consider in determining whether a sentence of death is
justified.\2\ Passage of this bill would add a 17th statutory
aggravating factor for federal death penalty eligible
offenses.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980) (aggravating factors
must give jurors clear standards for determining who receives the death
penalty).
\3\See 18 U.S.C. 3592(c) (2006). Examples of existing statutory
aggravating factors include previous conviction of a violent felony
including a firearm; previous conviction of an offense for which a
sentence of death or life imprisonment was authorized; heinous, cruel,
or depraved manner of committing offense; and vulnerability of the
victim due to old age, youth, or infirmity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained below, the addition of a 17th aggravating
factor is unnecessary because it will not fill any gap in
federal authority. Federal prosecutors already can and do seek
the death penalty for such killings and the bill does not
provide a stiffer penalty than can be had in state court. The
measure is also unwise because it raises constitutional
concerns of arbitrariness, risking the finality of convictions
and sentences.
CONCERNS WITH H.R. 115
I. H.R. 115 DUPLICATES FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS THAT ENHANCE SENTENCES OF
PERSONS CONVICTED OF CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT
H.R. 115 needlessly duplicates federal and state laws that
already impose heightened punishments on persons found guilty
of violent crimes against law enforcement. For example, the
very law that the bill seeks to amend, 18 U.S.C. 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.\4\ 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,\5\ as well as
officers of the U.S. courts.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\18 U.S.C. 3592(c)(14) (2006).
\5\18 U.S.C. 1121(a)(1) (1996).
\6\18 U.S.C. 1503 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the large number and broad reach of the existing
aggravating factors in section 3592, most, if not all such
killings of law enforcement or first responders already meet
one or more of the existing aggravating factors that permit
application of the federal death penalty. Significantly,
however, the existing 16 factors do not bind, limit or restrict
the government from alleging other specific aggravating
factors. In addition, the government is permitted to identify
its own, ``non-statutory'' aggravating factors to justify
application of the death penalty. Typically, the government
alleges both statutory and non-statutory aggravating factors
for the jury's consideration. The fact that the victim was a
state law enforcement officer or first responder can be
denominated a non-statutory aggravating factor and thus is
fully addressed by the prosecution and considered by the jury.
It is, therefore, virtually impossible to imagine a law
enforcement/first responder killing that can be prosecuted in
federal court in which the death penalty would not be available
under existing law.
Recent federal prosecutions demonstrate that federal
prosecutors already have the tools they need to seek the death
penalty in cases involving the killing of state law enforcement
officers/first responders:
U.S. v. Ronell Wilson, E.D.N.Y.--two New
York City detectives were killed during a gun sting
operation. The defendant was sentenced to death.
U.S. v. Donzell McCauley, D. D.C.--a
Washington, DC police officer was killed by a defendant
who sought to avoid apprehension. The defendant
received a sentence of life without the possibility of
parole following a guilty plea.
U.S. v. Kenneth Wilk, S.D. Fla--a deputy
sheriff was killed while attempting to serve a search
warrant. Following a capital trial, the defendant was
sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
U.S. v. Kenneth Barrett, E.D. Okla.--a state
law enforcement officer was killed during a drug raid.
The defendant was sentenced to death.
LaShaun Casey, D. P.R.--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.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, D. Mass.--an on-duty MIT
police officer was killed by the defendant and his
brother during flight to avoid apprehension for the
Boston Marathon Bombing. The defendant was found to be
eligible for the death penalty for this murder; he was
sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for
this murder, and to death for two others.
Additionally, all 50 states have laws in place that enhance
penalties for crimes against peace officers, and in some
instances, crimes against first responders.\7\ For example, in
Colorado, a person convicted of killing a peace officer, fire
fighter or emergency medical service provider may be sentenced
to life without the possibility of parole or death.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See Anti-Defamation League, Statutes Providing Enhanced
Penalties for Crimes Against Police, Fifty States Against Hate,
Washington, DC (2016).
\8\Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-3-107 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. H.R. 115 RAISES NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS OF ARBITRARINESS,
LEADING TO LENGTHIER DELAYS AND CONFUSION IN CAPITAL CASES
H.R. 115 would generate additional constitutional issues in
an already complex area of law, creating grounds for appellate
reversals and prolonging appeals in capital cases.\9\ To
address the arbitrary results in capital cases that rendered it
unconstitutional, the Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia\10\
and Gregg v. Georgia\11\ arrived at the doctrine of
``narrowing'' which allowed states to specify aggravating
circumstances or factors for a jury to determine whether any
eligible defendant was particularly worthy of the death
penalty. These long lists of aggravating factors give
prosecutors and courts broad discretion in imposing the death
penalty, allowing for substantial arbitrariness in the capital
punishment system.\12\ A proliferation of aggravators as
envisioned in this legislation undermines the narrowing
function required by Furman and Gregg, thus risking the
constitutionality of the federal death penalty. The ultimate
impact of such an ever-expanding death penalty is that almost
all murders become eligible for the death penalty, a result
that is inconsistent with the Eighth Amendment.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\See Kirchmeier, Jeffrey L., Casting a Wider Net: Another Decade
of Legislative Expansion of the Death Penalty in the United States.
Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2006. Available at SSRN: https.
\10\408 U.S. 238 (1972).
\11\428 U.S. 153 (1976).
\12\See Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors:
The Paradox of Today's Arbitrary and Mandatory Capital Punishment
Scheme, 6 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 345, 395-96 (1998).
\13\See Carol S. & Jordan M. Steiker, Courting Death: The Supreme
Court and Capital Punishment (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, a statutory aggravator based solely on a
victim's status as a law enforcement officer or first responder
risks inviting arguments of comparable worth, weighing the
defendant's life against the victim's, and inviting
unconstitutional and improper testimony concerning the impact
of the crime on law enforcement.\14\ Finally, general
principles of federalism and appropriate deference to state
decisions should discourage (if not prevent) Congress from
legislating so as to effectively override considered state
policy decisions to not employ the death penalty.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\See, e.g, Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 877 (1983) (noting
that death penalty statutes must ``genuinely narrow the class of
persons eligible for the death penalty . . . .'').
\15\In addition, H.R. 115 does not have a mens rea requirement with
respect to the victim's status as a law officer, unlike the other
specific intent elements found in the federal death penalty sentencing
statute. In other words, it applies to a homeowner who returns fire, in
the dark, during a police no-knock search. See, e.g., Kevin Sack, Door
Busting Drug Raids Leave a Trail of Blood, N.Y. Times, Mar. 18. 2017
(documenting the instances in which police have been shot at or killed
in the violent execution of a no-knock warrant), https://
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-entry-warrant-drug-
raid.html?_r=0. Thus, the death penalty would apply to a homeowner who,
in the middle of the night and in the dark, without knowing that the
person invading their home is a police officer, shoots and kills who
they believe is an intruder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. H.R. 115 DOES NOT ADDRESS DOCUMENTED AND SYSTEMIC UNFAIRNESS AND
RACIAL DISPARITY IN THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY
During the markup of H.R. 115, Members raised 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 offered in support of
convictions in death penalty cases. Members offered amendments
to study and address these issues through standards for
attorney training,\16\ provision of resources,\17\ and
examination of forensic science.\18\ These amendments were
dismissed as non-germane even though they were directly related
to the death penalty subject matter of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Amendment offered by Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-RI) requiring
the Attorney General to study the American Bar Association defense
counsel guidelines and make recommendations for federal implementation.
Unofficial Tr. of the Markup of H.R. 115 Before the H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 115th Cong. page 27 (Apr. 27, 2017) [hereinafter Markup
Tr.].
\17\Amendment offered by Rep. Cicilline authorizing funds for the
defense of persons indicted for capital crimes. Id. at 33.
\18\Amendment offered by Rep. Cicilline creating a commission to
recommend standards for the use of forensic science in capital crimes
cases. Id. at 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statistics concerning the pervasive racial disparities
found in the imposition of the death penalty are staggering and
would clearly impact the application of any additional
aggravating factor. African Americans comprise 42% of death-row
prisoners,\19\ but only 13% of the Nation's population. Between
1976 and 2016, 77% of the victims of executed prisoners were
white, while only 15% of the victims were African American,\20\
even though almost half of all homicide victims overall are
African American.\21\ Alarmingly, since 1976, only 20 white
prisoners were executed for the murder of an African-American
victim, while 286 African-American prisoners have been executed
for the murder of a white victim.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\See Death Penalty Information Center, National Statistics on
the Death Penalty and Race (Apr. 2017), https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/
race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976?scid=5&did=184.
\20\Id.
\21\See Alexia Cooper & Erica L. Smith, Homicide in the U.S. Known
to Law Enforcement, 2011, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ243035, at 4 tbl.1 (Dec.
2013).
\22\See Death Penalty Information Center, National Statistics on
the Death Penalty and Race (Apr. 2017), https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/
race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976?scid= 5&did=184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal death penalty, in particular, is rife with
troubling evidence of racial disparity: 36 of the 61 people 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 5th Circuit
(Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) in the modern era have been
people of color.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\See Federal Capital Habeas Project, available at http://
www.capdefnet.org/2255/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These disparities should be troubling to anyone who
believes in the fair administration of the rule of law.
Researchers have posited that the reasons for racial
disparities in the imposition of the death penalty include a
perceived link between race and dangerousness, as well as
implicit biases that result in a higher valuing of white
victims over others.\24\ Regardless of the explanation,
sponsors of this legislation should study and understand the
impact of any proposal that will likely exacerbate these
disparities. To underscore this need, Representative Cedric
Richmond (D-LA) offered amendments to H.R. 115 that would have
attempted to gather more information on the question of racial
disparities by requesting studies be conducted on disparities
in the conviction and execution of capital punishment and on
the disparities of individuals sentenced to death and
thereafter exonerated. These amendments, however, were ruled
non-germane and the Committee was therefore prevented from
debating them on their merits.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\See, e.g., Jennifer L. Eberhardt et al., Looking Deathworthy:
Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts Capital
Sentencing Outcomes 384 (Cornell L. Fac. Publ'ns 2006), available at
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=lsrp_papers (finding that after
controlling for case and individual differences, ``defendants whose
appearance was perceived as more stereotypically Black were more likely
to receive a death sentence than defendants whose appearance was
perceived as less stereotypically Black'').
\25\Amendments offered by Rep. Cedrick Richmond (1) requiring the
Attorney General to study disparities in the conviction, and execution
of capital punishment, Markup Tr. at 50, and (2) requiring the Attorney
General to study disparities of individuals sentenced to death and
thereafter exonerated, Markup Tr. at 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) raised serious
concerns at the markup regarding the use of procedural rulings
to block the Committee from considering Democratic amendments
that would have directly addressed these issues of racial
disparity and systemic unfairness in the imposition of the
death penalty. While the amendments may not have been
technically germane under House Rules, they were very relevant
to any serious discussion about the death penalty. He noted
that by blocking these amendments on procedural grounds, the
Committee failed to get to the ``real heart of the concerns
regarding the death penalty'' and further noted that when we
open this issue ``we must be prepared to deal with it in its
totality.''\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Markup Tr. at 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE
DEATH PENALTY
Finally, H.R. 115 is under consideration at a time when
Americans' support of the death penalty is at its lowest in
over 40 years. According to the Pew Research Center, public
support for the death penalty has dropped seven points, from
56% to 49%, and 42% of Americans oppose it.\27\ The botched
execution of Clayton Lockett by Oklahoma officials in 2014 may
have caused many to reconsider their support of the death
penalty.\28\ The problems revealed by Mr. Lockett's execution
led a bipartisan, blue ribbon Commission in Oklahoma to
recently recommend that the state continue its present
moratorium on executions due to concerns about the legality of
the execution process, as well as myriad other problems
revealed about Oklahoma's administration of the death
penalty.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Baxter Oliphant, Support for Death Penalty Lowest in More than
Four Decades, Pew Research Ctr., Sept. 29, 2016, http://
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/29/support-for-death-penalty-
lowest-in-more-than-four-decades/.
\28\Greg Botelho and Dana Ford, Oklahoma stops execution after
botching drug delivery, CNN, Oct. 9, 2014, http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/
29/us/oklahoma-botched-execution/.
\29\See Report of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission,
March 2017, available at http://okdeathpenaltyreview.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, Arkansas' unprecedented rush to execute several
men in April 2017 over the course of one week predictably
resulted in signs of inhumane and tortuous executions. An
Associated Press reporter who witnessed the execution of
Kenneth Williams--the last of four inmates killed in the span
of seven days--reported that Mr. Williams ```lurched' 15 times
in quick succession, followed by five slower lurches, three
minutes after . . . midazolam was introduced.''\30\ The
reporter also stated that ``Williams could be heard after the
microphone to the death chamber was turned off.''\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Rob Burgess, Arkansas rushes 4 executions in just 7 days, May
3, 2017, http://www.kokomotribune.com/opinion/house_of_burgess/house-
of-burgess-arkansas-rushes-executions-in-just-days/article_2e45ccde-
2f69-11e7-b93a-4f2bca9c1d14.html.
\31\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without a hearing on the bill, the Committee was unable to
consider the evidence of the dramatic decline in the use of
capital punishment across the country. In fact, by the end of
2016, a majority of states had abandoned the death penalty in
law or in practice. This data provides significant indication
that there is little public safety utility in the expansion of
the death penalty. For example:
Death sentences have reached a 40-year low.
For example, Texas imposed just two new death sentences
in 2015 while during the 1990's, Texas routinely had
more than 30 new sentences per year and in 1999 they
had 48.
Executions are at a 20 year low, and only a
handful of states have carried out an execution in the
last year: five states in 2016, six in 2015, and seven
in 2014.
Four governors have declared moratoria and
halted executions in their states (Pennsylvania,
Oregon, Colorado, and Washington).
Even in those jurisdictions with the death penalty, its use
is extremely rare. Only 2% of counties are responsible for the
majority of executions. Further, out of 3,143 counties
nationwide, only 16 counties returned five or more death
sentences in the six-year period between 2010 and 2015.
CONCLUSION
We 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. Any consideration of the death penalty selection
process implicates fundamental due process concerns\32\ and it
is incumbent on the Committee to fully consider those concerns.
However, H.R. 115 was considered for markup, and will now be
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. Providing duplicative protections to law
enforcement or first responders simply cannot counter-balance
our sincere concerns about this flawed legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\See Singleton v. Norris, 108 F.3d 872, 875 (8th Cir. 1997)
(Heaney, J., concurring).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than advancing a bill that amounts to an empty
gesture that is damaging at best, the Committee should focus on
real reform measures 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.\33\ We should be working to foster law
enforcement reforms aimed at helping local jurisdictions meet
their obligations to ensure law enforcement is acting in a
constitutional manner instead of pursuing legislation, such as
H.R. 115, that will sow seeds of division that ultimately
undermine public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\See, e.g., U.S. Dep't of Justice Civil Rights Division,
Investigation of the Baltimore City Police Department, Aug. 10, 2016,
https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/883366/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we dissent and urge our colleagues to join us
in opposing H.R. 115.
Mr. Conyers, Jr.
Mr. Nadler.
Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Johnson, Jr.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Jayapal.
Mr. Raskin.
[all]