[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 81 (Thursday, May 12, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2477-S2478]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2340
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor today and will, in
short order, seek unanimous consent for the passage of the Daniel
Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021. This bill, which was
reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last December with
overwhelming bipartisan support, is named after Daniel Anderl, the 20-
year-old son of U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas.
Mr. President, 1 year 9 months 23 days ago, Daniel was brutally
murdered by a gunman who targeted Judge Salas for her gender, her
ethnicity, and because he could not accept a judgment in a case that
she reached in her court.
To carry out his horrific hate crime, the gunman used publicly
available information, tracking down Judge Salas to her home in New
Jersey and murdering Daniel in cold blood when he answered the door.
And after that, her husband Mark also was shot and seriously wounded.
Every single day since July 19, 2020, Judge Salas and her husband
Mark have been dealing with the immense grief of burying their only
son. No parent should have to experience such a devastating loss. Yet,
in the face of so much pain, Judge Salas has channeled it into purpose,
embarking on a personal mission to increase the safety and privacy of
her fellow judges and their families.
Now, I know Judge Salas well. Back in 2010, I was proud to recommend
her to the Federal bench. A year later, when the Senate unanimously
confirmed her by voice vote, she became the first Latina to serve on
the district court of New Jersey.
After the horrific tragedy she suffered, I made a personal commitment
to honor Daniel's legacy through action. I told her I would not rest
until we enacted greater protections for those who serve on the Federal
bench to prevent another judge from having to endure the senseless
violence Judge Salas experienced.
The bipartisan bill I seek unanimous consent for is an effort I am
proud to lead with 12 of my colleagues, including Senators Durbin,
Grassley, Booker, Graham and Kennedy. Our bill would prevent potential
assailants from using publicly available information to target judges
or their families. It is a commonsense measure that would authorize the
U.S. Marshal Service to monitor online threats and deter future
attacks.
It is so common sense that it was voted out of the Judiciary
Committee with strong bipartisan support--I am talking about a 21-to-0
vote in the affirmative.
It is so common sense, in fact, that just, I think, 2 days ago my
Republican colleagues led a similar measure to safeguard Supreme Court
Justices and their families.
So if the Senate passed an important bill without hearings--without
hearings--directly to the floor to support and protect Supreme Court
Justices and their families, I think we should do it as well for
Federal judges. Nobody made an effort to change that bill.
There is simply no explanation or justification to protect Supreme
Court Justices while delaying legislation to protect Federal judges who
face the same, if not greater, risk.
No judge in America should have to fear for their lives as they work
to uphold our Constitution, our democracy, and ensure all people have
equal justice under the law.
Every day that we delay in passing this critical legislation is a day
that we delay necessary protections for the guardians of our
Constitution and the rule of law.
There are three branches of our government. One of the essential ones
is the judiciary. They make decisions
[[Page S2478]]
every day about what is the law of the land and what is the answer to
disputes among us as individuals and entities. If that judge is fearful
that their decisions at the end of the day will lead to violence
against them and their families, how long will their judgment not be
affected and, therefore, how long will we as a nation be able to say
that the rule of law is truly in place?
So I ask my Senate colleagues to join me today in honoring the life
and memory of Daniel Anderl. Let us do the right thing and unanimously
pass the Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021 named after him.
So, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 190, S.
2340; further, that the committee-reported substitute amendment be
agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and
passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, I agree that members of the
judicial branch need better protection. In fact, I have been appalled
that leftwing pro-abortion groups released the addresses of our Supreme
Court Justices and that there have been people at their houses trying
to intimidate them. It is appalling and shouldn't happen. Whoever it
was that released the addresses of the Supreme Court Justices should be
punished.
So I think there is bipartisan support in this. I was disappointed
though that the White House has not condemned the release of the
Supreme Court Justices. I think that ranting and raving and noise all
night is disturbing the peace and isn't actually First Amendment
protected speech.
But if recent years have taught us anything, it is that Members of
the legislative branch also need protection. That was clear in 2011
when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was tragically shot while doing the
most important part of her job, meeting with constituents.
Words cannot express how happy and inspired I was to see
Congresswoman Giffords was in the Chamber as her husband, Senator
Kelly, was recently sworn in, but words also cannot express the pain
felt by the families of the people who were killed and wounded that
day.
That should have been a wakeup call to better protect Members of
Congress and, in doing so, better protect the people around them. But
just a few years ago, a shooter nearly killed Congressman Steve
Scalise during practice for the annual charity baseball game. I know. I
was there. One staffer was shot less than 10 feet from me.
The Capitol Hill police were there and saved our lives. Had they not
been there, things might have been much worse. But the Capitol Police
aren't everywhere, and our families live in many cities outside of
Washington. Extending the provisions of this bill to Members of
Congress would do nothing to change the content. In fact, I believe our
legislative changes add four words ``and Members of Congress.''
So I think these protections actually are good protections. I agree
with the spirit of the bill; I agree with the letter of the bill, but
really it should be judicial folks protected as well as Congress.
My substitute amendment, which I will offer for unanimous consent,
would make a simple change. My amendment would simply extend the
protections that would be offered to the judicial branch to the
legislative branch.
So I ask the committee-reported amendment be withdrawn and that the
Senator modify his request to include my substitute amendment which is
at the desk; that the substitute amendment be considered read a third
time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made
and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
I appreciate the desire of the Senator from Kentucky to protect
Members of the legislative branch. I wish someone would have come to
the floor the other night when we had a rush, which I thought was
important, to protect Supreme Court Justices. That was a moment in
which that could have been pursued. That went through lightning speed.
That didn't even have a hearing. It didn't go through the process of
the Judiciary Committee like this bill has, but there was no such call.
And so I would work with my colleague on a separate legislation to
provide protections for a different universe, including a legislative
one. I know there are other Members who want to provide these
protections to everyone. The question is that none of that has been
moving on the floor. None of that has had the time and attention in the
committee processes to ferret out the challenges, the issues, and
whatnot. But every day we see violence against judges across the
country, and we have an opportunity to take a moment of tragedy and
turn it into something powerful.
And I would work with my colleague on his desire, but at this point,
because I am concerned that what we would do is not find a pathway in
the House because there are already challenges in the House, even to
the simple proposition of limiting these protections to Members of the
Federal judiciary, I am afraid that such an expansion under this bill
would render it useless in terms of any action in the House, and so I
have to object to the proposed amendment but with a desire to work with
my colleague on anything I can to move forward in a different way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. PAUL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, just a brief remark. You know, I regret
that in the goal to protect ourselves, we can't protect others.
Not every law where we seek to provide a protection is ultimately
grandly approached. I think that the passage of this bill would send a
clear message to our Federal judiciary, who are not on the awesome
Supreme Court, that they will be protected just the same as any Supreme
Court Justice and that they can make their judgments without fear that
violence will come their way to them or their family because of the
decisions they make in our society.
And then building upon that success, we can try to build and create
greater protections for others. But this maximalist position is,
unfortunately, one that, at the end of the day, doesn't provide
protection for anyone.
And so I will keep coming back to the floor. We will keep working to
try to make this happen because this young man who died senselessly and
his parents who had to bury their only son--his memory cannot die in
vain.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.