[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 161 (Thursday, September 17, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5693-S5694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1135

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I am going to be talking about a bill 
of mine that is, I think, very appropriate and very timely, the Protect 
Our Heroes Act, which will federalize certain violent crimes against 
public safety officers across the country, like the police and first 
responders, in order to deter these kinds of crimes and show the men 
and women in our law enforcement community that we have their backs.
  Before I get into the details of my bill, I want to talk a little bit 
about a very moving event.
  I was back home last week in Alaska. I was at the American Legion 
Post No. 15 in Palmer, AK, and it was on the commemoration of September 
11. It was a wonderful remembrance dinner. There were tons of veterans, 
patriots. My State is blessed with more vets per capita than any State 
in the country.
  But it was focused on law enforcement. We had the Palmer police chief 
there. We had members of the police department from Anchorage there 
because we were focused on so many things that came out of that day--9/
11.
  But honoring our first responders is something that I think America 
learned--that we need to respect the men and women epitomized by the 
police and firemen who went up the Tower. Many of them knew they were 
going to die, and they did that. They did that to protect us, and there 
was this newfound respect for our first responders that came out of the 
tragedy of 9/11.
  Now, in my remarks to my fellow veterans in Palmer at the American 
Legion post last Friday, I did mention that one of the elements of what 
is happening in our country, unfortunately, is that these memories are 
fading. They are fading, and in some ways the respect for the police is 
not just fading. It is being reversed.
  You see these movements, these national movements of defunding our 
police--a horrible idea, in my view. My State needs more law 
enforcement, not less. We have seen on our TV screens and our social 
media channels that there are people--criminals--who are focused on 
harming the police, killing the police, attacking the police, and even 
taking glee in the killing and the violence against law enforcement.
  So we have all seen in the past few years a dramatic increase in 
killings, in ambushes. In Iowa, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, 
California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Georgia this has been 
happening. It certainly hit home in my State.
  In Anchorage, in 2016, we had a brave police officer, Arn Salao, who 
was the victim of a cowardly ambush in 2016. Thankfully, he survived, 
barely. What was the result of the arrest of the individual who tried 
to kill him? He ended up being a serial killer, killing five others in 
Anchorage. But this brave police officer found him, stopped him, and 
almost lost his life.
  Unfortunately, another officer in a shooting in Alaska the same year, 
2016, in Fairbanks, wasn't so fortunate. On October 16, 2016, Sergeant 
Allen Brandt, an 11-year veteran of the Fairbanks Police Department, 
pulled over a suspect to question him, and he was shot five times. He 
eventually succumbed to the complications related to his injuries.
  I went to the memorial service. There were hundreds of Alaskans. He 
had a young family, a young wife. It was brutal to watch this.
  These are selfless men and women in my State, who are every day 
getting up to risk their lives and to wear the uniform in the line of 
duty.
  All of this inspired me to put together my Protect Our Heroes Act, 
which will enhance Federal penalties for the killing or assaulting of 
public safety officers and first responders, especially increasing 
penalties for criminals who ambush or lure law enforcement officers for 
the purpose of committing crimes against them--dramatically enhancing 
penalties.
  This is something that I think the vast majority of us in the Senate 
agree with.
  Now, I take the opportunity to go running most days, whether I am 
here or back home. And when I go running on Capitol Hill, what I see 
every morning--and I saw it this morning--are police officers. No 
matter the time of day, Capitol Police are sitting in their vehicles or 
on patrol. Their sole purpose is to protect this institution and the 
Members.
  This morning, as I usually do when I run past them sitting in their 
car, I just gave them a thumbs-up. Thank you. Thank you. We respect 
you, and we certainly have your back.
  So that is why I am offering this legislation today. I hope my Senate 
colleagues can come together to support this. I think it would be 
inconceivable to vote against this bill, especially now when we are 
seeing these kinds of heinous activities like we saw in Compton, CA. 
But we also want to send a message to our first responders and law 
enforcement: We are watching. We are going to pass laws to 
disincentivize this kind of heinous action against you, and we have 
your back and the back of your family members, who are probably worried 
when you go out on your duty every day.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration 
of S. 1135 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 
further, that the Sullivan substitute amendment at the desk be 
considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read 
a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition.
  Mr. President, I reserve my right to object.
  As a former assistant U.S. attorney and New Mexico attorney general, 
I worked hard to prosecute violent crimes, including those committed 
against law enforcement.
  The recent shootings of two law enforcement officers in California 
were heinous. My deepest condolences and prayers go out to the officers 
and their families. The perpetrator must be brought to justice. All 
such violence is appalling.
  However, this bill is both unnecessary and, potentially, a 
problematic expansion of Federal criminal law. It is already a Federal 
crime to kill or attempt to kill an officer or employee of the United 
States.
  Most, if not all, States already make killing a police officer a 
specific crime, and, of course, murder and assault are crimes in all 50 
States and Territories
  So it is unclear that this bill will increase deterrence, and the 
bill is very broad, covering not only murder and attempted murder but 
also any assault against hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of 
people.
  One new crime created by the bill is death eligible, raising historic 
concerns about executing the innocent and the death penalty being 
arbitrarily applied.
  This bill has not gone through the regular order, with no hearings on 
such a sweeping change in the balance of State and Federal criminal 
law.
  For many years, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, the 
Federalist Society, and congressional Republicans have all spoken out 
against the expansion of Federal criminal law. It is not just 
conservatives. There is bipartisan support for that view and broad 
consensus among criminal law experts and the Federal judiciary itself.
  The Judicial Conference of the U.S. courts has testified to Congress 
against the over-criminalization of Federal law, citing the burdens 
they already face.

[[Page S5694]]

  And former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese wrote for the Hoover 
Institution over 20 years ago, in 1999, highlighting the following 
problems with over-criminalization of Federal law. He warned about 
these:

       An unwise allocation of scarce resources needed to meet the 
     genuine issues of crime;
       An unhealthy concentration of policing power at the 
     national level;
       An adverse impact on the federal judicial system;
       Inappropriately disparate results for similarly situated 
     defendants, depending on whether essentially similar conduct 
     is selected for federal or state prosecution;
       A diversion of congressional attention from criminal 
     activity that only federal investigation and prosecution can 
     address;
       The potential for duplicative prosecutions at the state and 
     federal levels for the same course of conduct, in violation 
     of the spirit of the Constitution's double jeopardy 
     protection.

  I think the Senate should consider those warnings and should not rush 
to approve such a measure without hearing testimony and a long and 
careful study.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.