[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 81 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4054-S4055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CONSULTATION REQUEST

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter 
dated June 10, 2013, to the minority leader be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 2013.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: I am requesting that I be consulted 
     before the Senate enters into any unanimous consent 
     agreements or time limitations regarding H.R. 180, National 
     Blue Alert Act of 2013.
       I support the goals of this legislation and believe 
     suspects who seriously injure or kill federal, state or local 
     law enforcement officers in the line of duty should be 
     apprehended as quickly as possible. However, I believe the 
     responsibility to address this issue, as it relates to state 
     and local law enforcement officers, lies with the states and 
     local communities that these brave law enforcement officers 
     serve. Furthermore, while I do not believe this issue is the 
     responsibility of the federal government; if Congress does 
     act, we can and must do so in a fiscally responsible manner. 
     My concerns are included in, but not limited to, those 
     outlined in this letter.
       While this bill is well-intentioned, it will likely cost 
     the American people several million dollars over 5 years 
     without corresponding offsets. I recognize this bill no 
     longer contains the authorization included in prior versions 
     of this legislation; however, establishing a new program 
     which requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to carry out 
     additional responsibilities, even if implemented by existing 
     staff, is not free of future costs. In examining last year's 
     National Blue Alert Act of 2012 (H.R. 365), the Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) estimated the DOJ would incur an 
     additional $5 million over 5 years solely in administrative 
     costs to operate the Blue Alert system. As this legislation 
     made no changes from the 2012 bill, it is safe to assume 
     those costs will recur.
       It is irresponsible for Congress to jeopardize the future 
     standard of living of our children by borrowing from future 
     generations. The U.S. national debt is now over $16.7 
     trillion. That means over $53,000 in debt for each man, woman 
     and child in the United States. A year ago, the national debt 
     was $15.7 trillion. Despite pledges to control spending, 
     Washington adds billions to the national debt every single 
     day. In just one year, our national debt has grown by $1 
     trillion or 6.4%.
       In addition to these fiscal concerns, there are several 
     problems specific to this legislation. First, there is no 
     need to establish a national Blue Alert system because many 
     states have already developed their own Blue Alert programs 
     for the same purposes outlined in this bill, including alerts 
     issued for the injury or death of federal, as well as state 
     and local law enforcement officers. In 2008, Florida and 
     Texas were the first states to establish these programs. 
     Fourteen additional states soon followed--Oklahoma, Maryland, 
     Georgia, Delaware, California, Virginia, Mississippi, 
     Tennessee, Utah, Colorado, South Carolina, Washington, 
     Kentucky, and Ohio. This year, in July and October, 
     respectively, Indiana and Connecticut will begin their Blue 
     Alert systems. Several state legislatures currently have 
     legislation pending that would establish a Blue Alert system, 
     including Minnesota, Illinois and Alabama.
       Furthermore, there is no data to support the success of any 
     of the existing state Blue Alert programs. Oklahoma 
     established its Blue Alert system in 2009, but it is not yet 
     fully functional. The last five states to establish an alert 
     system did so just last year. As a result, not only have 
     states already established their own programs, but from the 
     limited use of the existing systems, there is no clear 
     evidence of a substantial need for a Blue Alert system, or of 
     the consistent, successful apprehension of suspects as a 
     direct result of a Blue Alert. If anything, we should wait 
     for these programs to produce results that can be examined 
     and determine whether this type of system is useful before 
     instituting a federal one-size-fits-all program.
       Second, while the bill's supporters likely envision 
     pursuing suspects who have injured or killed a law 
     enforcement officer in a routine traffic stop or while 
     fleeing a crime scene, for example, the bill's definition of 
     ``law enforcement officer'' is much broader.

[[Page S4055]]

     The bill incorporates the definition in Section 1204 of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which 
     includes ``an individual involved in crime and juvenile 
     delinquency control or reduction, or enforcement of the 
     criminal laws (including juvenile delinquency), including, 
     but not limited to, police, corrections, probation, parole, 
     and judicial officers.'' As a result, a Blue Alert could be 
     issued for a state court bailiff, a state parole officer, or 
     an officer within a state's juvenile corrections facility, if 
     injured in the line of duty.
       Finally, I do not believe the federal government has the 
     authority under the Constitution to provide federal funds to 
     coordinate the tracking of state and local fugitives or to 
     establish national protocols to apprehend suspects accused of 
     injuring or killing state and local law enforcement officers. 
     Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the 
     limited powers of Congress, and nowhere are we tasked with 
     funding or becoming involved with state and local criminal 
     issues.
       There is no question those suspected of injuring or killing 
     a state or local law enforcement officer in the line of duty 
     should be aggressively pursued and prosecuted. However, I 
     believe this issue is the responsibility of the states and 
     not the federal government. Despite these Constitutional 
     limitations, if Congress does act in this area, like most 
     American individuals and companies must do with their own 
     resources, we should evaluate current programs, determine any 
     needs that may exist, and prioritize those needs for funding 
     by cutting from the federal budget programs fraught with 
     waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication.
           Sincerely,
                                              Tom A. Coburn, M.D.,
     United States Senator.

                          ____________________