[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 29, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4792-S4796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Requests
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I rise today seeking unanimous
consent to pass a package of bipartisan bills that will support current
and former law enforcement officers who have sacrificed so much--
sometimes everything--to protect our families.
Yesterday morning, three people died in a shooting in my home State
in Reno, NV, and just hours later, four people died, including a law
enforcement officer, in a shooting in New York City.
The only reason more people didn't die is because law enforcement
responded quickly. Law enforcement officers run toward danger for the
rest of us. These are the people we are supporting with the package of
bills today.
This package includes three pieces of legislation that I am proud to
cosponsor and one I introduced myself.
I am a cosponsor of S. 419, the Reauthorizing Support and Treatment
of Officers in Crisis Act of 2025 introduced by Senator Hawley. This
bipartisan bill would help fund family support, suicide prevention, and
other mental health services to law enforcement officers.
I am also a cosponsor of S. 1316, the Strong Communities Act of 2025,
introduced by Senator Peters. This is bipartisan legislation that would
make law enforcement recruits eligible for funding to make their
education and training programs more affordable in return for their
commitment to service to our communities.
And, finally, I am cosponsoring S. 539, the bipartisan PROTECT Our
Children Reauthorization Act of 2025, introduced by Senator Cornyn.
This bill authorizes funding for the Department of Justice to assist
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in investigating and
prosecuting child exploitation.
These bills, along with four others, including my colleague Senator
Klobuchar--these bills honor our law enforcement officers and have
support from both Republicans and Democrats.
The legislation I want to focus on today is S. 911, the bipartisan
Chief Herbert D. Proffitt Act of 2025, which I was proud to introduce
with Senator Mitch McConnell.
The men and women who serve as law enforcement officers risk their
lives every day to keep our community safe. Whether they are actively
serving or have retired in good standing, we owe them a debt of
gratitude. That is why the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program
exists.
It provides death and education benefits to the surviving family
members of fallen law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other
first responders.
It also provides disability benefits to officers who have suffered
irreparable injuries in the line of duty. It is a critical program that
supports the families of those who sacrificed everything to protect our
communities.
Unfortunately, the existing PSOB Program does not cover the rare
instance in which a retired law enforcement officer dies as a result of
their service.
In 2012, Chief Herbert D. Proffitt, a retired law enforcement officer
in Kentucky, was going about his day. When he went outside his house to
check his
[[Page S4793]]
mail, he was tragically shot and killed by a man he had arrested a
decade earlier.
Even though his murder was a direct retaliation for his service in
uniform, Chief Proffitt's family was denied the benefits they deserved
simply because he had already retired. To me, that is unacceptable, and
I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree.
That is why Senator McConnell and I worked together to write the
Chief Herbert D. Proffitt Act to ensure that families of retired law
enforcement officers who were killed as a result of their service are
not denied benefits, so no more families have to go through what Chief
Proffitt's family has gone through. This is just commonsense,
bipartisan legislation that passed unanimously out of the Judiciary
Committee--unanimously.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and the rest
of the bipartisan bills in this package to protect the men and women
who protect us every day, and their families.
I would like at this time to provide an opportunity for my colleague
from Iowa--to yield some time to him, the Judiciary chairman, right
now, to provide some remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from
Nevada for coming to the floor to push for passage of these bipartisan
bills that she has mentioned.
I also see that Senator Klobuchar is on the floor to seek like
legislation that she has worked on in a bipartisan way to protect law
enforcement and first responders, and I would also support her efforts.
Law enforcement across the country put their lives on the line every
day. We see examples of the dangers they face on the news and in our
communities on a daily basis.
This month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported an 830-
percent increase in assaults on their officers and agents during the
course of their enforcement duties. Agents and officers had rocks and
other projectiles thrown at them, causing injury to person and
property. These agents and officers have been doxed and had their home
addresses, family members' names, and other personal information posted
on social media for anyone to see, which has resulted in an increased
number of threats and intimidation to these law enforcement personnel
and their families.
We had the opportunity to hear firsthand from three Federal law
enforcement officers during a Judiciary Committee hearing on cartels
last month about the ongoing risk and dangers to law enforcement.
We had Special Agent in Charge Matthew Allen of the Los Angeles field
office of the Drug Enforcement Administration testify that his agents
are oftentimes surveilled by cartel members and other bad actors. He
further testified that he has lost several friends and fellow law
enforcement officers as a result of their law enforcement duties.
Just recently, we learned that an off-duty Customs and Border
Protection officer was shot in the face in New York City during an
attempted robbery by a previously deported illegal alien. Thankfully,
the officer is expected to survive.
According to the Fraternal Order of Police, as of June 30 of this
year, 166 officers were shot in the line of duty, and 21 of them lost
their lives. While these numbers are lower than from previous years,
the shooting this weekend is yet another example of the threats and
dangers our men and women in blue face every day, both on and off duty.
Earlier this year, Senator Durbin, who is also on the floor with us--
he is the ranking member of the committee I chair--he and I led a
resolution honoring 234 officers who made the ultimate sacrifice and
are being recognized as line-of-duty deaths. It passed with over 80
cosponsors.
We worked together across the aisle to report these bills that are
being discussed here on the floor of the Senate. Those bills were voted
out of committee in what we honor as Police Week in the United States.
The seven bills are part of the largest Police Week package in over 15
years. The package of seven bills passed the committee with bipartisan
support and also by unanimous vote. They provide a good example of the
extensive problems facing our law enforcement community. For example,
one bill deals with recruitment and retention issues to ensure our law
enforcement is well staffed. Other bills deal with protecting law
enforcement from the dangers of fentanyl and providing law enforcement
with the equipment they need to serve our communities.
Lastly, the bills provide protection to the families of first
responders and provide the much needed resources for the mental health
of law enforcement.
Mr. President, I would yield back to the Senator from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Iowa
and the Judiciary Committee and all of the good work he has done on
these important pieces of legislation, as they really work towards
ensuring that all of our communities across the country stay safe and
that we are supporting our law enforcement.
So as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en
bloc: Calendar No. 77, S. 180; Calendar No. 79, S. 419; Calendar No.
80, S. 539; Calendar No. 81, S. 911; Calendar No. 82, S. 1316; Calendar
No. 83, S. 1563; Calendar No. 84, S. 1595; further, that the committee-
reported substitute amendment to S. 1563 be agreed to and the
committee-reported amendment to S. 1316 be agreed to; that the
committee-reported substitute amendment to S. 539 be withdrawn and the
Cornyn substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; finally, that the
bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and
passed en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be considered made
and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. BOOKER. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. I am reserving the right to object.
I want to begin by acknowledging the tragic loss of New York City
Police Officer Didarul Islam last night, just about 50 miles from where
I live. He made the ultimate sacrifice, bravely placing himself in
harm's way to protect strangers, people he didn't know, because that is
what American police officers do. This selfless commitment is a daily
reminder. It is a reminder of the reality for police officers in
America who risk their lives to safeguard communities. My deepest
condolences go out to his family and his young children during this
time of unimaginable grief.
I rise today to propose an amendment to the bills before us, one that
guarantees every officer in every State like Officer Islam has the full
support they deserve in their service to our communities from this
body.
Sadly, this is not what the Justice Department is doing. Rather than
supporting law enforcement agencies and officers equally across the
Nation, they are weaponizing public safety grants to punish State and
local jurisdictions that resist the Trump policy agenda, including my
home State of New Jersey.
The Department of Justice is right now withholding funds from law
enforcement agencies across the country--including New Jersey--that we
have passed through this body in a bipartisan way unless they enforce
the administration's unjust immigration agenda and comply with the
President's unjust and unlawful Executive orders and memoranda. It is
disgraceful, it is unfair, it is unjust, and it is dangerously reckless
towards the officers whose well-being they are jeopardizing--officers
like the ones I know personally who serve and protect New Jersey.
Come on now. Federal funds should not be used for partisan political
games. They shouldn't be weaponized to benefit this State that
supported the President and not this State that didn't support the
President. This is the shift towards authoritarianism. It is
undermining the separation of powers we have here in America.
This body has duly-approved grants. It is our job. It is spelled out
in the Constitution that each of us has sworn an oath to protect. And
this President is upending that process, violating the
[[Page S4794]]
will of this body, Democrats and Republicans alike, in pursuit of his
petty political agenda. And who is getting hurt? Well, in this case,
New Jersey police officers are being hurt; New York police officers are
getting hurt. In the wake of a murder of a police officer in New York
yesterday, this is outrageous.
Public safety grants like these that I am a cosponsor of are not
meant to reward law enforcement in favored jurisdictions or States
while punishing others. It shouldn't matter whether a person puts on
his uniform in Texas or New Jersey. Does it matter that Officer Islam,
who was killed last night in New York City--does it matter that he is a
New York cop and not a North Dakota cop? Sadly, it appears that Donald
Trump thinks so.
For us as a body, to move forward right now is being complicit in
what Donald Trump is doing. I say no. I say we stand. I say we fight. I
say that we reject this and, in a bipartisan way, that we demand an end
to this kind of constitutionally unjust carving up of the resources we
approve.
Think about this: In April, Donald Trump's administration cut nearly
400 public safety grants administered by its Office of Justice Programs
without any notice or explanation. Think about that for a second.
Programs that I supported, programs that I cosponsored, programs that
protect police officers and communities, he canceled without a
justification.
I have written letters to the Justice Department. They have not given
a justification. I have asked in open hearings: Why did you cut this
funding for approved grants to States like New Jersey? No
justification. I sent a letter to the DOJ signed by 30 of my colleagues
demanding information about what happened and that they reinstate all
grants that had been rescinded, and no action and no response. Yet,
today, we want to move forward with needed grant programs to protect
police officers, but that money won't go to New York; that money won't
go to New Jersey. You have got to be kidding me.
When will we stand and fight this President?
This offers little consolation. Today, nobody is speaking to the
organizations in New Jersey, to the police officers in New Jersey that
partner with law enforcement but now lack the resources to endure a
burdensome appeal or to operate without critical grants or funding now
for months.
When are we going to stand up as a body and defend our work, defend
our jurisdiction, defend this coequal branch of government?
I ask my colleagues to pass these bills with my amendment to provide
resources to law enforcement agencies with this important provision
that safeguards these grants from politicization and ensures that all
law enforcement agencies have a fair chance to secure these important
grants.
Our officers have the hardest job in America. Every day, they put
their lives on the line. Why would we do something today that is
playing into the President's politics and is going to hurt the officers
in States like mine?
I believe in these bills. I am a cosponsor on some. That is why I am
standing here to fight to ensure police departments in New Jersey
aren't excluded from accessing these vital funds. Our officers have
just as much of a right as officers in other States. So do officers in
California, in New York, in Illinois, in Washington, and in other
States that have been the target of this Department of Justice.
I am an American. I pledge allegiance to that flag--liberty and
justice for all. Pass my amendment and make sure that all officers in
America who put their lives on the line have access to these grants.
I ask consent that the bill be modified, that my amendments to S.
180, S. 419, S. 539, S. 1316, and S. 1563, which are at the desk, also
be agreed to, and the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read
a third time and passed en bloc so that all police officers in America
get the intended resources that the Judiciary Committee passed
unanimously for American police.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Reserving the right to object, I agree. Withholding
funding for law enforcement anywhere in the country--across the
country--is just not acceptable and it should not be done and it should
not be based on party affiliation, playing favoritism--I absolutely
agree.
But I also agree, two wrongs don't make a right. And where we are
today, these bills passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee
weeks ago, and my colleague from New Jersey, I have respect for him. He
is on the committee. He voted to pass these bills. He had an
opportunity at that time to present this amendment. This is the first
time we are ever hearing about it.
We have been trying to pass this package of bills that passed out of
committee unanimously in the last 8 weeks. And now that we came to the
floor to try to push and get this done, we are hearing for the first
time about this amendment.
Let me just say, this amendment really is not even applicable to the
Proffitt bill that is part of this. It has nothing to do with grant
funding. This bill has everything to do with trying to make sure that
grant funding goes to all the States. I am not here to talk about grant
funding. There is no funding associated with it, yet he wants to put it
on my piece of legislation.
This is why it is ridiculous. This is an attempt to kill all of these
bills. I don't know why. I don't know why, because at the end of the
day, all of these bills are about bipartisan support.
If my colleague absolutely has concerns about getting funding to his
law enforcement, I would be willing to work with him. I would be
willing to work--and I know my colleagues would try to figure out how
we ensure that this administration doesn't play favorites and fight for
that funding and holding them accountable to get that funding to all of
our law enforcement communities across this country.
I agree; President Trump's impoundment of funding is a serious
concern. But tacking on poison pill language to these bills won't
guarantee that any additional funding makes it to New Jersey, Nevada,
or any other State. Instead, what it will do, it will keep critical
bills from passing in the first place. Let me just say that again.
These are critical bills.
One bill, the Protecting First Responders for Secondary Exposure Act,
requires purchasing devices that prevent secondary exposure to fentanyl
and other lethal substances. Reauthorizing Support and Treatment for
Officers in Crisis Act 2025 provides family support and mental health
services to law enforcement personnel. PROTECT Our Children
Reauthorization 2025 assists Federal, State, and local law enforcement
Agencies in investigating and prosecuting child exploitation.
And we are sitting here today saying: That is not going to pass--even
though it came out of committee unanimously; even though there was a
time to address the concerns that my colleague has. And now he wants to
kill all of these bills, some of them that his amendments are not even
applicable to.
You have to question what is going on here. Is this the right venue
to fight for what he is seeking?
I absolutely respect him and understand his concern and would be
willing to fight with him to get that funding--essential funding--to
his State that this administration has, apparently, blocked. But this
is not the way to go about it, to kill all of these bills with this
poison pill amendment. For that reason, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Reserving the right to object, I am confused by my
colleague because she knows I don't object to her two bills. She is
going to be offering her two bills in a second. I don't know what the
confusion is there.
I object to the bills that are putting resources out that States from
California to New York are not eligible for because of the actions of
this President.
The second thing my colleague confuses me is saying I had my chance.
Actually, I didn't. The regularly scheduled Judiciary Committee hearing
wrapped up, and then a hastily one was put back together. I had no
notice of that, no ability to plan for it, and had a conflict.
This, to me, is the problem with Democrats in America right now, is
we are willing to be complicit to Donald
[[Page S4795]]
Trump; to let this pass through when we have all the leverage right now
there is to say that if you are as passionate about police as we are,
then pass bills out of this body that will help the police officers in
Washington, that will help the police officers in Illinois, that will
help the police officers in New Jersey, that will help the police
officers in Newark.
Don't be complicit to the President of the United States who, we both
know, doesn't understand that language: ``Oh please, oh please, don't
hurt blue States.''
We are standing at a moment where our President is eviscerating the
Constitution of the United States of America, and we are willing to go
along with that today.
No, no. Not on my watch. I stand against this. It is a violation of
our Constitution for the President of the United States to ignore the
will of Congress and decide which States are eligible to grants and
which are not.
Well, we know something in New York and New Jersey. I was a Newark
elected official when 9/11 happened. I saw my first responders charging
into those buildings. I know what police officers do every day.
My amendment was just called a poison pill. That is ridiculous. My
amendment just says police officers in New Jersey are just as important
as the police officers in North or South Dakota. It says the police
officers in New York are just as important as the police officers in
Texas. It says the police officers in California are just as important
as the police officers in Alabama.
Why would we go along with a President who is violating our
Constitution time and time again? When in the history of this body--
Democrats and Republicans used to stand up for their turf. These could
easily pass. Put a simple amendment that says: You know what? You can
play games however you want, President Trump, but when it comes to
resources for police officers, no games.
Today, I stand and fight for the Constitution. I stand and fight
against this President. And, heck, yeah, I am going to stand and fight
for the police officers from the great State of New Jersey. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Nevada
for her work in trying to bring these bills to a vote on the floor. I
want to thank Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee. I want to thank Senator Durbin, who is here, the ranking
member of the Judiciary Committee; someone who has, by the way, been a
leading voice on immigration for years in this Chamber.
One of the things I don't understand here is that we have committees
for a reason, and we have hearings for a reason. You can't do one thing
on Police Week and not show up and not object and let these bills go
through and then say another thing a few weeks later in a big speech on
the floor. I like to show up at the markups, and I like to make my
case.
And I will note that Senator Booker objected to my police
reauthorization bill, the COPS funding--the Clinton COPS funding, long
before Donald Trump came into office. So this is not just about this.
This is a long dispute over this type of funding, funding that I think
is really important right now.
Our country's law enforcement professionals do some of the hardest
and most important work out there. Every day across America, we ask
them to put everything on the line to keep us safe. We ask them to run
towards danger and to guide others to safety. And every day across
America, they put on their uniforms, their bulletproof vests, their
badges, and they get to work. We need to have their backs, and that is
what this package of bills does--by the way, a bill supported out of
the committee from some of the most liberal Senators and some of the
most conservative Senators in this body. We came together. There were
bills we would have liked to include that we did not.
If the objection is based on some of this horse show that is going on
out of the White House, I agree with that piece of Senator Booker's
points. I have been equally vociferous taking on this administration.
But all of these bills came out of the committee unanimously, and I
think they deserve that support on the floor.
These bills help fund grants for mental health services for law
enforcement. By the way, if this issue--which I agree with Senator
Booker on about all these States should be treated the same--well,
then, I suppose then he will be voting against all of this funding for
New Jersey unless this is changed. So we should be watching for that
for every single vote, instead of just these bills. These bills that
are in front of us were supported unanimously out of committee--grants
that help law enforcement combat child sexual exploitation; grants that
help address recruitment and retention crisis that is plaguing local
law enforcement; Senator Cortez Masto's bill, as she explained, to help
support families of fallen law enforcement officers who were targeted
and attacked because of their service as law enforcement.
My bill, which has now been objected to--so I am not going to mention
it separately or ask for it to be called up separately. My bill, the
Retired Law Enforcement Officers Continuing Service Act, done with
Senator Grassley, would make sure that law enforcement agencies can
continue to utilize the skills that talented law enforcement retirees
have built up over their career of public service. There are many
retired law enforcement officers who want an active retirement and are
eager and ready to serve their community.
This might sound like small ball, but when we are looking how we are
going to build up these police agencies when we don't have enough
police, when they are out there at these scenes getting shot at, we
have to be creative in terms of the ideas.
I believe strongly, we are going to see another President in the
future. We are going to see, out of these next elections, a check on
some of this. But for now, I want to get these programs started.
This bill would allow law enforcement agencies across the country to
keep using their expertise to review video footage to solve carjacking
cases or help cyber and financial crime investigations. This bill will
also help train the next generation of law enforcement officers. These
and the other police bills passed during Police Week while those police
officers are sitting there in the hearing room when no one objected,
they are bipartisan, commonsense legislation. They passed the Judiciary
Committee unanimously.
And I can't help it if someone couldn't change their schedule to be
there. I think that these hearings should mean something and that
people should be saying the same thing they say in Police Week when
those people are sitting out there in their uniforms who have lost
loved ones. As they say on this Senate floor, if we expect law
enforcement to respond to some of the most difficult crises at a
moment's notice, it is on us to set them up for success.
I was there at the National Mall where it rained the entire night,
and not a family wasn't there when they thought it was going to be a
nicer day. And that was this year on the National Mall to honor those
fallen heroes, the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Candlelight Vigil.
Every single officer whose name was read that night was a beloved
family member and a friend to so many, including three from my State.
There was Officer Jamal Mitchell who was shot and killed in the line
of duty just last June; and Officers Paul Elmstrand and Matthew Ruge
who, along with Firefighter Paramedic Adam Finseth were killed
responding to a domestic violence call in Burnsville, MN. They were
called to duty. They answered the call. They actually got seven kids
out of this house and saved their lives. One was gunned down. A
paramedic came in to try to save him, and he was gunned down. I will
never forget hearing from Adam Medlicott, who was there with the three
fallen first responders when they answered the call.
He said of his fallen comrades:
We were there for seven children. Nothing could be more
honorable.
He is absolutely right. You can't teach that kind of heroism. Our
brave law enforcement professionals deserve to know that the resources
they rely on will be there when they need them.
[[Page S4796]]
I hope we can work some of this out. I completely agree with Senator
Booker about what this administration is doing, but you can't just pick
out a few bills that came out of committee and say, ``I am going to
stop those,'' and then allow for other bills that fund other parts of
your budget in your State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I was just called out by name, and I want
to respond.
This is what frustrates me. I have passed numerous pieces of
legislation for our police officers. I partnered with Chuck Grassley--
the incredible Senator from Iowa--on a bill very similar to the one I
support about police officers who fall in the line of duty. In this
case, it was COVID. Police officers who got COVID and died had
difficulty proving it was a line-of-duty death. We passed that
legislation to make sure those families got the benefits.
I have worked in bipartisan ways and within my own party to make sure
we get resources to our police officers. I don't need lectures about
the urgency of this. One of my childhood best friends--a police officer
in a small town in New Jersey--after a hard day's work, before he even
went home to see his family, died by suicide. I don't need somebody
implying in any way that this is not vital to me and my State that we
have resources for our police officers. That is why I support this
package. That is why I am a cosponsor of some of the bills in this
package.
But what I am tired of is when the President of the United States of
America violates the constitution and trashes our norms and traditions.
And what does the Democratic Party do--comply? allow him? beg for
scraps? No. I demand justice. Somebody is implying that this, to me, is
not about resources for my State. I will fight for Jersey every day,
every night and when it comes to the police officers of my State as to
anybody who implies that something is going on other than my allegiance
and fealty to the safety, strength, and protection of my police
officers because they protect me and everybody in this body.
This is a call, folks. The Democratic Party needs a wake-up call. I
see law firms bending a knee to this President, not caring about the
larger principles--those free speech rights that you can take on any
client. Why are you bending the knee?
I see universities that should be bastions of free speech bending at
the knee to this President. I see businesses taking late-night talk
show hosts off the air because they dare to insult a President. I see
people who want mergers suddenly think they have to pay tribute to this
President.
And what are the very people here who are elected to defend the
Constitution of the United States saying? Oh, well. Today, let's look
the other way and pass some resources that won't go to Connecticut;
that won't go to Illinois; that won't go to New York but that will go
to the States he likes. That is complicity with an authoritarian leader
who is trashing our Constitution.
It is time for Democrats to have a backbone. It is time for us to
fight. It is time for us to draw lines. And when it comes to the safety
of my State being denied these grants, that is why I am standing here.
Don't question my integrity. Don't question my motives. I am standing
for Jersey; I am standing for my police officers; I am standing for the
Constitution; and I am standing for what is right.
Dear God, if you want to come at me that way, you are going to have
to take it up with me because there is too much on the line in America
with people's due process rights and free speech rights and as secret
police are running around this country picking people up off the
streets who have a legal right to be here. There is too much going on
in this country.
When are we going to stand together for the principles that I just
heard that were agreed with? When are we going to stand together? If we
don't stand as Democrats, we deserve to lose, but if we stand united,
if we stand strong, if we stand with other people, if we tell America,
with a chorus of conviction, that what this President is doing is
wrong--if we stand up and speak that way--dear God, we will win like
all of those people who are our ancestors who joined hands together and
said: We shall overcome.
No, not on my watch. I am protecting Jersey today. I am protecting
our Constitution today. I am standing today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, let me try to refocus this on the
bills that are before us today.
I am not sure if the answer here is to stop bipartisan legislation
that gives tools to law enforcement across the community to keep our
communities safe--that stopping those is the answer moving forward
here. I don't know of anyone across this community who has a concern
when they make that 9-1-1 call who doesn't want law enforcement to
respond. I don't care whether you are a Republican, a Democrat. I don't
care if you are nonpartisan. I don't care where you live. You want law
enforcement to respond if there is something happening in your
community.
That is what these bills are focused on, is how do we ensure that our
law enforcement has the tools that it needs to ensure that it can keep
our communities safe. That is all it is, and there are several of them,
bipartisan, and they passed in a unanimous way for that very reason--to
keep our communities safe.
Now, we can talk about the funding for those in appropriations. That
is a separate subject, and I am willing to work with my colleague and
fight the administration from stopping that funding, but if we don't
pass these pieces of legislation, we are not even giving the tools to
law enforcement to keep our communities safe. That is what this is
about, and that is why there was unanimous consent for it.
I do want to also thank one other person I didn't get a chance to,
who is Senator Durbin. He has worked tirelessly on the Judiciary
Committee on these pieces of legislation, has worked with law
enforcement, has worked with all of us in the understanding that it is
about safe communities at the end of the day and about ensuring we keep
and give law enforcement the tools it needs to keep our communities
safe.
I also appreciate my colleague who is willing to work with me on two
pieces of the bills that are before us, albeit we worked this out just
before we walked on the floor today, but I appreciate his willingness
to allow me to really kind of pull out two pieces of legislation and
talk to him about it and then his willingness--what I am hearing--to
support it.
____________________