Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resoulutions

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. DAYTON, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. CORZINE, and Ms. CANTWELL):

S. 718. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide standards and procedures to guide both State and local law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officers during internal investigations, interrogation of law enforcement officers, and administrative disciplinary hearings, and to ensure accountability of law enforcement officers, to guarantee the due process rights of law enforcement officers, and to require States to enact law enforcement discipline, accountability, and due process laws; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State and Local Law Enforcement Discipline, Accountability, and Due Process Act of 2005, along with Senator SPECTER, Senator MCCONNELL, Senator CHAMBLISS, Senator DAYTON, Senator MURRAY, Senator CORZINE, and Senator CANTWELL.

These are trying times for the men and women on our front lines who provide our domestic security and public safety--our Nation's law enforcement personnel. In fact, our men and women in blue are facing what I have called a perfect storm. First, they are being called upon to undertake more responsibilities than ever before. They are being required to undertake homeland security duties that weren't required before September 11, and, at the same time, the FBI is reprogramming its field agents from crime to terrorism cases. While I don't disagree that this shift in resources is appropriate, it undoubtedly leaves a gap in law enforcement efforts to combat drugs and crime, and State and local agencies must fill this gap. At the same time, budget shortages at the local level are forcing personnel lay-offs, an increasing use of overtime to meet demand, and the forced elimination of critical crime prevention programs. Local law enforcement is struggling to keep up with service calls. To add insult to injury, Federal assistance for State and local law enforcement has been reduced by billions over the last 2 years--with the proposed elimination of the COPS hiring program--a proven initiative that has been hailed as one of the keys to the crime-drop of the nineties. Quite simply, we are asking law enforcement to do more with less, and I believe that public safety is being compromised as a result of Congress's unfortunate choices on the Federal budget.

We may argue about the Federal responsibility to provide financial assistance to State and local law enforcement, however, few will dispute the sacrifices that our men and women in law enforcement make for our nation. Indeed, they face one of the most difficult work environments imaginable--an average of 165 police officers are killed in the line of duty every year. Our Nation's law enforcement officers put themselves in harms way on a daily basis to ensure the safety of their fellow citizens and the domestic security of our Nation. Nevertheless, many times these brave officers do not receive basic rights if they become involved in internal police investigations or administrative hearings. According to the National Association of Police Organizations, ``[i]n roughly half of the states in this country, officers enjoy some legal protections against false accusations and abusive conduct, but hundreds of thousands of officers have very limited due process rights and confront limitations on their exercise of other rights, such as the right to engage in political activities.'' Similarly, the Fraternal Order of Police notes that, ``[i]n a startling number of jurisdictions throughout this country, law enforcement officers have no procedural or administrative protections whatsoever; in fact, they can be, and frequently are, summarily dismissed from their jobs without explanation. Officers who lose their careers due to administrative or political expediency almost always find it impossible to find new employment in public safety. An officer's reputation, once tarnished by accusation, is almost impossible to restore.''

The legislation that we introduce today, which is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and of the National Association of Police Organizations, seeks to provide officers with certain basic protections in those jurisdictions where such workplace protections are not currently provided. First, this bill allows law enforcement officials to engage in political activities when they are off-duty. Second, it provides standards and procedures to guide State and local law enforcement agencies during internal investigations, interrogations, and administrative disciplinary hearings. Additionally, it calls upon States to develop and enforce these disciplinary procedures. The bill would preempt State laws which confer fewer rights than those provided for in the legislation, but it would not preempt any State or local laws that confer rights or protections that are equal to or exceed the rights and protections afforded in the bill. For example, my own State of Delaware has a law enforcement officers' bill of rights, and those procedures would not be impacted by the provisions of this bill.

This bill will also include important provisions that will enhance the ability of citizens to hold their local police departments accountable. The legislation includes provisions that will ensure citizen complaints against police officers are investigated and that citizens are informed of the outcome of these investigations. The bill balances the rights of police officers with the rights of citizens to raise valid concerns about the conduct of some of these officers. In addition, I have consulted with constitutional experts who have opined that the bill is consistent with Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause and that it does not run afoul of the Supreme Court's Tenth Amendment jurisprudence.

I would also like to note that I understand the objections that many management groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, have to this measure. I have discussed this with them, and I've pledged that their views will be heard and considered as this bill is debated in Congress. It is my view that we must bridge this gap. Without a meeting of the minds between police management and union officials, the enactment of a meaningful law enforcement officers' bill of rights will be difficult. Law enforcement officials are facing unprecedented challenges, and management and labor simply must work together on this issue and the numerous other issues facing the law enforcement community.

I urge my colleagues to join Senators SPECTER, MCCONNELL, CHAMBLISS, DAYTON, MURRAY, CORZINE, CANTWELL, and me in providing all of the Nation's law enforcement officers with the basic rights they deserve.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

http://thomas.loc.gov/