[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 13, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Page S2948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
letter 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, May 13, 2014.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Minority Leader,
     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 S. 357, 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, according to the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will cost the American 
     people $1 million dollars every year without corresponding 
     offsets. I recognize this bill does not contain the 
     authorization of appropriations 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, as recognized by CBO. 
     Furthermore, there is no sunset provision contained in this 
     legislation. Thus, once enacted, the annual $1 million price 
     tag for this program will continue in perpetuity.
       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 $17.4 
     trillion. That means approximately $55,000 in debt for each 
     man, woman and child in the United States. A year ago, the 
     national debt was $16.7 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 
     $700 billion or 4.19%.
       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. 
     Seventeen additional states soon followed--Oklahoma, 
     Maryland, Georgia, Delaware, California, Virginia, 
     Mississippi, Tennessee, Utah, Colorado, South Carolina, 
     Washington, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Connecticut, and 
     Illinois. The last three states to initiate a Blue Alert 
     system did so in the 1-year period since the House passed its 
     version of this bill in May 2012. Arizona and Kansas will 
     likely begin their systems this summer and fall, 
     respectively. Several state legislatures currently have 
     legislation pending that would establish a Blue Alert system, 
     including Minnesota, Alabama, and Missouri.
       Furthermore, there is no data to support the success of the 
     existing state Blue Alert programs. Oklahoma established its 
     Blue Alert system in 2009, but it is not yet fully 
     functional. The last three states to establish an alert 
     system did so just within the 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. 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.,
     U.S. Senator.

                          ____________________