Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - August 03, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Allen, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Graham, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Santorum):

S. 3835. A bill to provide adequate penalties for crimes committed against United States judges and Federal law enforcement officers, to provide appropriate security for judges and law enforcement officers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Court and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2006. This bill is designed to address the critical issue of judicial and law enforcement security.

Police officers place their lives on the line every time they put on their uniforms and report for duty. Likewise, the dedicated men and women who work in America's courthouses--from the judges to the court reporters--preside each day over difficult, contentious and at times very emotional legal disputes. And these public servants, like our police, are placed in hams way by the nature of their jobs. These individuals fulfill essential roles that keep our democracy running smoothly, and I have the greatest respect for them.

Unfortunately, violence directed at public servants is on the rise. From escalating violence against police officers to courthouse attacks--including in my home State of Texas--these despicable actions threaten the administration of justice. This Congress has the power--and now must exercise it--to ensure that certain and swift punishment awaits those who engage in these unconscionable acts of violence.

The administration of justice--indeed, the health of American democracy--depends on our ability to attract dedicated public servants, including police officers and judges. And so we must do all that we can to provide adequate security to these dedicated men and women who are too often targeted for violence or harassment simply because of the position they hold.

As a former State attorney general, I had the responsibility of defending sentences on appeal of certain defendants who had been found guilty of violence. So I am acutely aware of the devastating effects criminal acts of violeave have on the victims and their families. And because I also used to be a judge I am fortunate to have a number of close, personal friends who serve in law enforcement and on the bench. I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence, and I have grieved with those families. I am outraged that these cowardly and despicable acts continue to occur.

Police officers in this Nation are sworn to protect and to serve their fellow citizens. They selflessly respond to dangerous situations and often must diffuse highly emotional circumstances. And judges, for their part, are impartial umpires of the law. We know that they cannot help but disappoint people in their line of work because, in litigation, there is normally a winning side and a losing one. But judges, witnesses, courthouse personnel and law enforcement must not face threats and violence for doing nothing more than simply carrying out their duties.

The protection of the men and women who compose our judicial system and serve the public in law enforcement are essential to the proper administration of justice in our country. This bill takes steps toward providing additional protections to these dedicated public servants.

First, it increases the punishments, including providing mandatory minimums, against those who retaliate against judges, police officers, or their family members, on account of the performance of their duties. A high-ranking law enforcement official recently told me that detention equals deterrence. What he meant was that those who know that they will face significant incarceration think twice about committing criminal acts. I agree with him, and we should carry out that idea in this legislation.

Importantly, this bill curbs frivolous lawsuits against police officers and streamlines the appellate process for those murderers who receive the death penalty for murdering a judge or a police officer.

It is good policy to place reasonable limits on lawsuits involving police officers by limiting claims to actual damages--unless the defendant purposefully inflicted serious bodily injury on the plaintiff, in which case the plaintiff may seek an additional $250,000 in damages. And returning the attorney's fees provisions in these cases to the traditional attorney's fees responsibility by requiring each party to bear this burden is likewise good policy.

Placing time constraints on habeas corpus petitions, including the time to file the petitions, the time to hold an evidentiary hearing on the petition, and the time to rule on a petition when the murder of a police officer is involved, is also good policy. This will eliminate extensive and unnecessary delays for the families of victims that occur when those who have victimized their loved ones find ways to delay the imposition of justice.

Finally, this bill makes technical fixes to the law enforcement concealed carry legislation passed in the 108th Congress. Some technical barriers prevent retired officers from carrying a firearm to defend themselves and their loved ones. These technical corrections will facilitate the full implementation of that provision as Congress originally intended.

Mr. President, the Court and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2006 is an important piece of legislation. It targets those people who would stand in the way of the proper, fair, and efficient administration of justice. The men and women of law enforcement and the judiciary work hard to carry out the duties entrusted to them by their State and the Federal Constitution, and they deserve our support. This bill is a significant step In providing them that much needed support. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue and encourage their support of this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov