[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 106 (Thursday, August 3, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8848-S8850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      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

[[Page S8850]]

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.
                                 ______