[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 14, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2920-S2923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1771
Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and
notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1771, which is at the
desk; further, I ask that the bill be considered read a third time and
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. I am going to object, but I think the Senator has some
remarks.
Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. MURPHY. I will let the Senator explain the reasons for the motion
he is making, and afterward, I will comment on the reasons for my
objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. It is now indisputable that the last 4 years saw more
injuries and more deaths of law enforcement officers than at any time
in American history. Let me just read to you some of the data.
From 2021 to 2023, more officers were feloniously killed than in any
other consecutive 3-year period of time over
[[Page S2921]]
the last 20 years. Let me repeat that. There were more deaths over the
last 3 years than in any 3-year period in the last 20 years.
Let me give you the numbers. One hundred ninety-four officers were
killed from 2021 to 2023. Last year, in 2024, 234 police officers were
killed in the line of duty.
Tomorrow, we will see their families on the Capitol. We will see the
moms that no longer have their kids, the kids that no longer have their
moms and dads, the sisters that don't have their brothers, the brothers
that don't have their sisters--234 officers just last year, including a
Cleveland police officer that, Mr. President, I think you know well.
His name is Jamieson Ritter. I wear his badge today with honor. He
was killed on the Fourth of July, responding to a police call in
Cleveland. He was a good person. He went in there, gave all the notice
he could. As the arrests were being made, the assailant shot and killed
him.
Imagine that phone call. Mr. President, you have now almost adult
kids and daughters. You have an adult son, I believe. Imagine getting
that phone call that your child has been killed in the line of duty, a
person who put their entire life under risk for us, for our
communities.
My colleague from Connecticut, in his State, just a year ago--and I
hope he remembers it, and I am sure he does because I assume he is a
good man. There is a gentleman named Aaron Pelletier. He got killed a
year ago. He was a Connecticut State trooper killed in the line of
duty. He was one of those 234 people.
Just, sadly, a week and a half ago, Larry Henderson, my age, retired
from the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office. You know how you go to some
places and you go to a funeral, and they always say, ``He was a good
man,'' and you are not sure if people meant it or not because it is a
terrible time of tragedy? As I walked into the Cintas Center, a place
where you have large gatherings of people, there was a line out the
door, cars around the corner to pay tribute to him and his family.
You know what everybody said? Of all the people, how could it have
happened to Larry, a good man.
I talked to his wife. I talked to her about this bill and how
important this was to the community to get this done. As I was telling
her that, she gave me a big hug and said: Please fight for Larry and
for the others that wear the uniform so that this does not happen
again.
In 2025, the list keeps growing. We continue to see more and more
fallen officers. So what is the solution?
I understand my colleague is objecting, but I assume he is listening
carefully and not just ignoring what I am saying, but rather willing to
change your mind, because here is the reality. There are a lot of
things that happen here on the Senate floor. There are a lot of things
we may not agree with. There are lots of policies where we maybe have
one viewpoint on the Republican side and one on the Democrat side, and
that is fine and that is healthy. I think that is what this institution
was intended to be. In my humble opinion, having been here 4\1/2\
months, I wish there was more debate--that there was more robust
conversation about the issues--but here we are.
This is a very simple bill. This bill just says: Look, let's just
make certain that there is Federal jurisdiction whenever a Federal law
enforcement officer is killed or injured in the line of duty. Let's
make certain that we have the police officers' backs like they have
ours and put a mandatory 20-year prison sentence for anybody that harms
a member of law enforcement. That is it.
It is not a 2,000-page bill, not a 4,000-page bill. It is a 3-page
bill. It is just a simple way that this institution, this body, can
come together. And in your case--to my colleague from Connecticut--you
have had Aaron Pelletier. I am sure you and your community suffered
greatly when you lost him in the line of duty, just as my community in
Southwest Ohio and Cincinnati suffered when this great man, after
retiring from the line of duty--after retiring--he is out directing
traffic for a graduation at the University of Cincinnati and was
absolutely murdered for the crime of wearing the uniform.
We can stop this. We can today. Today can be a day that people--
Americans--watching, who have less and less faith in our government's
ability to come together to get things done, when they see bickering
and arguing, and they don't quite understand what it is that we are
doing here--today is the day we can come together and say: We, on both
sides, not as Democrats or as Republicans but as Americans--that we
support law enforcement.
That is what I am asking my Democratic colleague to consider--just a
simple statement. We, the entire U.S. Senate, can come together for
once, unanimously, and say we have the backs of law enforcement and
pass the Larry Henderson Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, thank you. I appreciate the Senator's
remarks. I look forward to getting to know him as a new colleague.
But let me explain to the Senator why I am objecting. I abhor attacks
on police officers--all police officers--and no matter the motive. But
that is not the position of Republicans in the Senate.
On the day that President Trump was sworn into office, he pardoned
scores of violent felons who beat police officers, and my Republican
colleagues--almost to a Member--cheered him on and supported him.
Donald Trump pardoned David Dempsey who, on January 6, beat Capitol and
DC Police officers with his hands, feet, flagpole, crutches, broken
pieces of furniture--anything else that he could find that could be
used as a weapon. He teamed up with another rioter who pulled back one
police officer's gas mask while Dempsey sprayed pepper spray in his
eyes. He hit another police officer over the head with a metal crutch,
with so much force that it cracked the protective shield of the
officer's gas mask, causing him to collapse as his ears started
ringing.
Donald Trump also pardoned D.J. Rodriguez.
On January 6, Rodriguez pushed through the crowds, found a police
officer and put a Taser to his head. When the police officer screamed
out in pain and recoiled from the shock, Rodriguez attacked him again,
Tasering him this time in the neck. The officer was done. He collapsed
unconscious. Another officer pulled his lifeless body to safety. That
attack ended that officer's career.
Thomas Webster was pardoned by Donald Trump too. Webster attacked
police officers with a flagpole. He tackled one officer to the ground,
dragged him by the helmet, ripped off his gas mask to allow tear gas to
seep inside, and held the officer down so other rioters could brutally
kick him.
I oppose all violence against all police officers. So I don't
understand why there seems to be an exemption for the violence that was
perpetrated against the officers who protect us.
Your bill proposes a new mandatory minimum for assaults against
police officers that you are not applying to the officers who beat the
people who protect us. They were let out of jail free--D.J. Rodriguez,
David Dempsey, Thomas Webster. Republicans cheered as they were let out
of jail before their sentence was completed.
So if we are serious about protecting the police officers, we need to
protect all police officers. If police officers are protecting
Democrats--because that is who those rioters were here to kill or here
to hurt--then those assaults should matter. If Donald Trump says the
assault is OK, that shouldn't matter.
Yes, I have stood by the side of the families of slain or injured
police officers. But think about the families of those officers who
were brutally beaten here at the Capitol. Think about the officer who
was dragged unconscious from the site. His attacker was let out of
jail--no mandatory minimum.
Politics shouldn't have anything to do with our collective decision
to stand up against attacks on police officers. So I offer this
objection because I just don't feel like this bill is on the level
until we have agreement in this Chamber that President Trump doesn't
get to decide which attacks on police officers we care about and which
ones we don't.
We shouldn't pass this bill until Republicans make it clear that they
oppose all attacks on police, no exceptions--no exceptions, no
exemptions.
[[Page S2922]]
Republicans need to loudly oppose President Trump's pardons because if
you don't, you are sending a message that if you are carrying out
attacks on police officers in the name of President Trump's political
agenda or you are carrying out attacks on police officers who are
defending Democrats, those attacks might end up being pardoned or
excused. And our Nation just fades away. What makes our Nation great
fades away if violence is OK if it is in service of a particular
political agenda or if the attacks are in service of the President.
So I do take attacks against our police officers seriously, but I
don't think we should move forward legislation that implicitly has
exemptions in it. So let's get on the same page. Let's come to a
collective decision as a body that we care about all violence against
police officers. Let's hear every Member of this body condemn President
Trump's pardons. Let's come to the conclusion that politics should
never play a role in enforcing our laws against police violence.
I look forward to working with the Senator on that endeavor, and if
we can come to that conclusion jointly as a body, then I look forward
to working with him on this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. First, let me say I appreciate my colleague's willingness
to acknowledge that we have to support law enforcement.
The reason I went into elected office is to prevent these types of
debates. I am proposing legislation that is clear you support. You want
to make certain that we punish anybody who harms a member of law
enforcement. It is very simple. The objection isn't about looking
forward. The objection is saying: Well, I can't support something going
forward because I am upset about something that happened in the past.
That is a political comment. That isn't a matter of what is good for
public policy. Tell Lori Henderson why her husband had to die because
you are upset about something politically that happened in this
Chamber.
I wasn't here last year. I wasn't here the year before that. I wasn't
here the year before that, and I certainly wasn't here in 2001. If we
are going to move forward as a nation, we have to come together on a
forward-looking basis. We have to draw the line now and say: No more
law enforcement officers should ever be harmed.
What this bill will do is it will send a massive, chilling effect to
anybody looking to harm a member of law enforcement.
You should look at that and say: That is fantastic.
And if you want to have a conversation about what happened 4\1/2\
years ago--where you know better than I do; you have been here a lot
longer--the Constitution gives the President full pardon power. Joe
Biden pardoned almost 10,000 people, including 32 people who were on
death row, and commuted their sentences to life instead of death, which
is what they had been convicted of. I don't want to have that debate
because it has nothing to do with Larry Henderson. This bill is about
saying we will protect law enforcement.
The people watching this are so hungry for a government that works.
We don't have to wear a Republican jersey and a Democrat jersey at
every turn. We can come together as a country and say--look, you said
you agree. You said you agree that it should be a standard for all
Federal police officers. That is what I am proposing: every single
member of the Capitol Police, every single member of the FBI, of ICE,
of the U.S. Marshals--anybody who protects all of us. By the way, the
people who look to do us harm don't know if we are Democrats or
Republicans. I had a gentleman drive to my home in Toledo when I wasn't
there. He knocked on our door. My wife is not used to not answering the
door when somebody knocks. He was there to kill me. Thank God the
Westlake Police Department is 90 seconds away. If we don't put a stop
to this--if we don't just put down our little lapel pins that call us
Democrat or Republican--we are never going to be able to do anything in
this country.
Mr. MURPHY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MORENO. Let me finish real quick. The point is very simple. I get
it. I get it. Politics has become a sport. It is about one team winning
and one team losing, but that is why I ran for office, and I hope you
can remember back when you first ran for office. What is it that you
wanted to really accomplish? Did you want to make this country better
for your kids and grandkids? be able to look them in the eye someday
and say, ``I made this country better''? We do that by coming together
on things that we can easily agree on, and we agree--we agree--that we
should defend law enforcement. Let's do it now, not next week, not next
month because between now and then, we are going to lose more Larry
Hendersons. I find that unacceptable.
Imagine, my colleague, if the families, tomorrow, of the 234 slain
officers--what it would feel like for them to come to the U.S. Capitol
and say: Look, in this time of Democrats versus Republicans, where they
can't agree on anything, seemingly, they came together to say: Today,
we will never allow another Federal police officer to be harmed in the
line of duty.
I know you objected, but I will ask you one last time. I think it
is--and we don't need to go on all evening. I don't have Cory Booker's
stamina, but I will say this. Please consider the message you are
sending to every single mom or dad who puts on the uniform that says
there is a process question: I don't like the process in which this is
happening. I am mad at my political enemy. I may have or others may
have political aspirations, and this may hurt us.
Think about that family who does wake up every day to protect you
just in the same way they protect me.
God bless them.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, you are right. The Senator from Ohio was
not here on January 6, and your political affiliation mattered that
day. It mattered that day. Those rioters were here to harm not allies
of President Trump but opponents of President Trump. They had the
gallows outside with Mike Pence's name on it. They were searching the
halls of the Capitol for people who opposed Donald Trump's agenda.
So I agree with you that it would be wonderful and lovely to remove
this debate from politics, but on that day--on that day--there were bad
people here, seeking to do violence based upon the political
affiliations of people in this building; and the reason that they were
pardoned was that President Trump supported the violence so long as it
was in his name. So, yes, it does matter what happened not just on that
day but when Trump issued the pardons because it provides this message
of endorsement to violence so long as it is violence that Donald Trump
supports. That puts officers in jeopardy all over the country if the
potential perpetrators of violence against police officers have an idea
in their heads that, if they are doing it in support of Donald Trump,
they have a pretty good chance to get away with it. I don't think
anyone who assaults a police officer should get out of jail early.
So let me put the question to you. Maybe we can find common ground
right now. I recited to you the violence that was perpetrated on police
officers here by three specific rioters. Do you support Donald Trump's
decision to let those three individuals out of jail early? I think it
would be important for you as a Republican Member to say that you
oppose Donald Trump's decision to let those perpetrators out of jail
early, and we could have common cause today in that we both oppose all
early releases of individuals who attack police officers. So do you
agree with me that it was wrong to release those three individuals
early from prison?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. As my colleague knows--again, better than I do--the
President of the United States is given the constitutional authority on
pardons--
Mr. MURPHY. I understand he has that power. Regardless of whether he
has that power, do you agree with his decision?
Mr. MORENO.--and there is no mechanism with which this body can
change that, but what we can change--what we can change--is what
happens from here forward. We can say that anybody who harms a police
officer is going to do 20
[[Page S2923]]
years in prison. Now, Biden pardoned 9,500 people--9,500 people. This
is not the debate that we are having.
Do you know what I have found in business that is maybe a little bit
different than politics? The way to be successful is to look forward.
If in business all you do is look in a mirror and blame and try to
score points, you lose. We have to look forward.
You just said we have common cause. You don't want police officers--
by the way, you and I--
Mr. MURPHY. Let's have common cause right now.
Mr. MORENO. Hold on.
Mr. MURPHY: Let's decide--
Mr. MORENO. Hold on.
Mr. MURPHY. Let's decide it was not OK for Donald Trump to let the
people who brutally beat police officers out of jail early. Let's find
common cause right now. That would be in service of preventing violence
against police officers in the future because we could make it clear--
you and I could make it clear right now--that it doesn't matter whether
you are committing violence in the name of Donald Trump or not. It is
wrong if you commit violence against police officers. Why can't you
just agree with that?
Mr. MORENO. As my colleague knows--let me just restate--
Mr. MURPHY. Just say yes.
Mr. MORENO. Let me just state this again very simply. I haven't
interrupted you, and I would ask you to give me the same courtesy.
Mr. MURPHY. I apologize.
Mr. MORENO. That is OK. Look, we don't know each other. We
acknowledge that.
I actually believe that, in everybody, there is the innate desire to
do good and that Democrats and Republicans love this country. This
country is a gift to me. I came here from another country, as you know,
and got the ability to live in this country. The issue at hand--in
front of us--and what we can do right now is to pass the Larry
Henderson Act, something that you have acknowledged that you agree with
the elements in that bill: a mandatory 20 years for anybody who harms a
Federal law enforcement officer. You said you agree on that.
We can have 100 distractions that go right back into another
conversation. If you want to have a conversation, which, by the way,
because I have gotten to preside--you have had that conversation
multiple times. You and your colleagues have had it and you should and
you deserve to have it. That is not the issue before us today. The
issue before us today is, Do we want more Larry Hendersons?
So you asked me a question. I would ask you a question: If in the
next week you knew that there was another Aaron Pelletier and we could
have avoided that because we could have had a deterrent of a 20-year
jail sentence for that person, what would you feel you would tell their
family, ``I was fighting a 4\1/2\-year-old grudge''?
Do you know that you can make a difference right now? We can do this
right now. That is what the American public may not know and that I
didn't know until I got here. We can actually pass this bill in the
U.S. Senate right now--right now. We would make news. We would make
history. We passed a bill--somebody from Ohio whom you would consider
to be, maybe as a pejorative, a MAGA extremist and somebody who would
say, maybe, disparaging things about your political beliefs. Both you
and I--we have never met. We have never had a conversation. We have
never shared a cup of coffee. We could save the lives of law
enforcement officers all over this country. We could do that tonight.
I will ask you a question: Is it worth risking the life of a law
enforcement officer to score political points?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I understand the Senator is new. I will
remind him you are not allowed to impugn the motives of Members of the
Senate.
Listen, I think it is unfortunate that you cannot and other
Republicans cannot say that the individuals who beat the living hell
out of the police officers who protect us should not have gotten out of
jail free. I don't think that is a separate issue from the broader
concern about protecting police officers from violence because I think
what you have done in endorsing violence, as long as it is perpetrated
in the name of a political agenda, is to make every police officer in
this country less safe and to make all of us less safe as well.
So I think, if we want to come together around an agenda to protect
members of law enforcement, then, yes, it is very important--it is very
important--for the future protection of the law enforcement officers,
the police officers who protect us, to hear loudly from Republicans
that there is no exception--no exception--to the premise that you will
serve a long prison sentence if you commit an assault on a police
officer.
So I look forward to continuing this dialogue with my colleague. I
admit that we do not know each other. Maybe we can find common ground
here, but this is not a small issue. The normalization of political
violence in this country could be the defining issue of the next
decade, and I think that my Republican colleagues will rue the day that
they looked the other way when Donald Trump said that it was OK to beat
police officers over the head with flag poles, to Taser them to the
point that they were unconscious just because you were serving
President Trump's political agenda. That is not a side issue. That is
not a fringe issue. That issue of endorsement of political violence may
be central to the question of whether this democracy survives.
I know we have a pending vote and our colleagues are eager to get
home, and I look forward to continuing the conversation with my
colleague.