[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11445-H11446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  EXTENDING AUTHORITY FOR THE MARSHAL AND POLICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 4164) to provide for the extension of certain authority for the 
Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4164

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     first sentence of section 9(c) of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     relating to the policing of the building and grounds of the 
     Supreme Court of the United States'', approved August 18, 
     1949 (40 U.S.C. 13n(c)) is amended by striking ``1996'' and 
     inserting ``2000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].


                             General Leave

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the consideration of the House 
H.R. 4164, a bill to extend the authority for the Marshal of the 
Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police to provide security to 
Justices, court employees, and official visitors beyond the Court's 
buildings and grounds. It is crucial that we take favorable action on 
this legislation before adjourning this Congress, since authority to 
provide this protection is slated to expire on December 29, 1996.
  The authority for the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme 
Court Police to provide security beyond court grounds appears at 40 
U.S.C. 13n(a)(2), and was first established by Congress in 1982. 
Congress has periodically extended that authority--in the past 14 
years, there has not been an interruption of the Supreme Court police's 
authority to provide such protection. Congress originally provided that 
the authority would terminate in December 1985, and extensions have 
been provided ever since. In 1985, authority was extended through 
December 26, 1990; in 1990, it was extended through December 29, 1993; 
and in 1993, it was extended through December 29, 1996.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist has written to me requesting that Congress 
extend this authority permanently. As the

[[Page H11446]]

Chief Justice correctly pointed out to me in his letter, ``As security 
concerns have not diminished, it is essential that the off-grounds 
authority of the Supreme Court police be continued without 
interruption.'' The Supreme Court informs me that threats of violence 
against the Justices and the Court have increased since 1982, as has 
violence in the Washington metropolitan area. Accordingly, I support a 
permanent extension of this authority to provide for the safety of the 
Justices, court employees, and official visitors.
  Given the late date in the Congress, however, and the fact that we 
must pass an extension before December 29, 1996, the bill we are 
considering today would provide for only a 4-year extension, until 
December 29, 2000. My colleague in the Senate, Senator Hatch, has 
introduced a similar, stopgap bill, which will allow for the orderly 
continuation of Supreme Court security measures until the time that we 
can consider a permanent authorization. Yesterday, the Senate approved 
that bill.
  This provision is without significant cost, but provides great 
benefits to those on the highest court in the land and those working 
with them. According to the Supreme Court, from 1993 through 1995, 
there were only 25 requests for Supreme Court police protection beyond 
the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, at a toal cost of $2,997. I am 
also informed that off-grounds protection of the Justices within the 
D.C. area is provided without substantial additional cost, since it is 
part of the officers' regularly scheduled duties along with tasks on 
court grounds.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this much-needed extension so as 
to preserve the security of the Supreme Court.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because the gentleman from Illinois has 
clearly outlined what this is. This is basically housekeeping and it 
must be done. I wish we did not ever have to worry about policing for 
the Supreme Court or for anything else, but that is a wish that, 
obviously, is absolutely ridiculous when we look at the real world. If 
we do not do this, we are in real trouble.
  Yes, we probably need to do the permanent one as soon as possible 
because this constantly rolling it over every few years does not make 
sense either.
  The gentleman from Illinois has explained this. We have no objection 
over here.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
pay tribute to my friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado, Pat Schroeder. 
This may be our last clash on the floor. We have had several over the 
past 22 years anyway, and they have all been civil. They have been 
fervent but they have been civil.
  The gentlewoman makes a great contribution to this body, and she will 
be missed by this Member. I wish her Godspeed in her future endeavors.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 4164.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2100) to provide for the extension 
of certain authority for the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the 
Supreme Court Police.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I have no 
objection but I would like an explanation.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the bill is 
the identical bill with the one we just passed in the House. It is the 
Senate version.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

                                S. 2100

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.

       Section 9(c) of the Act entitled ``An Act relating to the 
     policing of the building and grounds of the Supreme Court of 
     the United States'', approved August 18, 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     13n(c)) is amended in the first sentence by striking ``1996'' 
     and inserting ``2000''.

  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.
  A similar House bill (H.R. 4164) was laid on the table.

                          ____________________