[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 18, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4653-S4666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to the 
consideration of S. 378, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 378) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their 
     family members and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment.
  [Insert the part printed in italic]

                                 S. 378

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Court Security Improvement 
     Act of 2007''.

          TITLE I--JUDICIAL SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS AND FUNDING

     SEC. 101. JUDICIAL BRANCH SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Ensuring Consultation With the Judiciary.--Section 566 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(i) The Director of the United States Marshals Service 
     shall consult with the Judicial Conference of the United 
     States on a continuing basis regarding the security 
     requirements for the judicial branch of the United States 
     Government, to ensure that the views of the Judicial 
     Conference regarding the security requirements for the 
     judicial branch of the Federal Government are taken into 
     account when determining staffing levels, setting priorities 
     for programs regarding judicial security, and allocating 
     judicial security resources. In this paragraph, the term 
     `judicial security' includes the security of buildings 
     housing the judiciary, the personal security of judicial 
     officers, the assessment of threats made to judicial 
     officers, and the protection of all other judicial personnel. 
     The United States Marshals Service retains final authority 
     regarding security requirements for the judicial branch of 
     the Federal Government.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 331 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``The Judicial Conference shall consult with the Director 
     of United States Marshals Service on a continuing basis 
     regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch 
     of the United States Government, to ensure that the views of 
     the Judicial Conference regarding the security requirements 
     for the judicial branch of the Federal Government are taken 
     into account when determining staffing levels, setting 
     priorities for programs regarding judicial security, and 
     allocating judicial security resources. In this paragraph, 
     the term `judicial security' includes the security of 
     buildings housing the judiciary, the personal security of 
     judicial officers, the assessment of threats made to judicial 
     officers, and the protection of all other judicial personnel. 
     The United States Marshals Service retains final authority 
     regarding security requirements for the judicial branch of 
     the Federal Government.''.

     SEC. 102. PROTECTION OF FAMILY MEMBERS.

       Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or a family member 
     of that individual'' after ``that individual''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by inserting ``or a family 
     member of that individual'' after ``the report''.

     SEC. 103. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS.

       (a) Extension of Authority.--Section 105(b)(3) of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of

[[Page S4654]]

     1978 (5 U.S.C. App) is amended by striking ``2005'' each 
     place that term appears and inserting ``2009''.
       (b) Report Contents.--Section 105(b)(3)(C) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (iii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) the nature or type of information redacted;
       ``(v) what steps or procedures are in place to ensure that 
     sufficient information is available to litigants to determine 
     if there is a conflict of interest;
       ``(vi) principles used to guide implementation of redaction 
     authority; and
       ``(vii) any public complaints received in regards to 
     redaction.''.

     SEC. 104. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES TAX COURT.

       (a) In General.--Section 566(a) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``and the Court of International 
     Trade'' and inserting ``, the Court of International Trade, 
     and any other court, as provided by law''.
       (b) Internal Revenue Code.--Section 7456(c) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to incidental powers of the 
     Tax Court) is amended in the matter following paragraph (3), 
     by striking the period at the end, and inserting ``and may 
     otherwise provide for the security of the Tax Court, 
     including the personal protection of Tax Court judges, court 
     officers, witnesses, and other threatened person in the 
     interests of justice, where criminal intimidation impedes on 
     the functioning of the judicial process or any other official 
     proceeding.''.

     SEC. 105. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR UNITED STATES MARSHALS 
                   SERVICE TO PROTECT THE JUDICIARY.

       In addition to any other amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for the United States Marshals Service, there 
     are authorized to be appropriated for the United States 
     Marshals Service to protect the judiciary, $20,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 for--
       (1) hiring entry-level deputy marshals for providing 
     judicial security;
       (2) hiring senior-level deputy marshals for investigating 
     threats to the judiciary and providing protective details to 
     members of the judiciary and assistant United States 
     attorneys; and
       (3) for the Office of Protective Intelligence, for hiring 
     senior-level deputy marshals, hiring program analysts, and 
     providing secure computer systems.

TITLE II--CRIMINAL LAW ENHANCEMENTS TO PROTECT JUDGES, FAMILY MEMBERS, 
                             AND WITNESSES

     SEC. 201. PROTECTIONS AGAINST MALICIOUS RECORDING OF 
                   FICTITIOUS LIENS AGAINST FEDERAL JUDGES AND 
                   FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) Offense.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1521. RETALIATING AGAINST A FEDERAL JUDGE OR FEDERAL 
                   LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BY FALSE CLAIM OR 
                   SLANDER OF TITLE.

       ``Whoever files, attempts to file, or conspires to file, in 
     any public record or in any private record which is generally 
     available to the public, any false lien or encumbrance 
     against the real or personal property of an individual 
     described in section 1114, on account of the performance of 
     official duties by that individual, knowing or having reason 
     to know that such lien or encumbrance is false or contains 
     any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or 
     representation, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 
     for not more than 10 years, or both.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     73 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new item:

``1521. Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement 
              officer by false claim or slander of title.''.

     SEC. 202. PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING CERTAIN 
                   OFFICIAL DUTIES.

       (a) Offense.--Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 118. Protection of individuals performing certain 
       official duties

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly makes restricted 
     personal information about a covered official, or a member of 
     the immediate family of that covered official, publicly 
     available--
       ``(1) with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite 
     the commission of a crime of violence against that covered 
     official, or a member of the immediate family of that covered 
     official; or
       ``(2) with the intent and knowledge that the restricted 
     personal information will be used to threaten, intimidate, or 
     facilitate the commission of a crime of violence against that 
     covered official, or a member of the immediate family of that 
     covered official,

     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 
     years, or both.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `restricted personal information' means, 
     with respect to an individual, the Social Security number, 
     the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number, 
     personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to, 
     that individual;
       ``(2) the term `covered official' means--
       ``(A) an individual designated in section 1114; or
       ``(B) a grand or petit juror, witness, or other officer in 
     or of, any court of the United States, or an officer who may 
     be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any 
     United States magistrate judge or other committing 
     magistrate;
       ``(3) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 16; and
       ``(4) the term `immediate family' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 115(c)(2).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``118. Protection of individuals performing certain official duties.''.

     SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS IN 
                   FEDERAL COURT FACILITIES.

       Section 930(e)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or other dangerous weapon'' after 
     ``firearm''.

     SEC. 204. CLARIFICATION OF VENUE FOR RETALIATION AGAINST A 
                   WITNESS.

       Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) A prosecution under this section may be brought in 
     the district in which the official proceeding (whether 
     pending, about to be instituted, or completed) was intended 
     to be affected, or in which the conduct constituting the 
     alleged offense occurred.''.

     SEC. 205. MODIFICATION OF TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS, VICTIM, 
                   OR AN INFORMANT OFFENSE.

       (a) Changes in Penalties.--Section 1512 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) so that subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(3) reads as 
     follows:
       ``(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in 
     sections 1111 and 1112;'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (A) in the matter following clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) 
     by striking ``20 years'' and inserting ``30 years''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``10 years'' and 
     inserting ``20 years'';
       (3) in subsection (b), by striking ``ten years'' and 
     inserting ``20 years''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``one year'' and 
     inserting ``3 years''.

     SEC. 206. MODIFICATION OF RETALIATION OFFENSE.

       Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)(B)--
       (A) by inserting a comma after ``probation''; and
       (B) by striking the comma which immediately follows another 
     comma;
       (2) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``20 years'' and 
     inserting ``30 years'';
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting a comma after ``probation''; and
       (ii) by striking the comma which immediately follows 
     another comma; and
       (B) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``ten years'' and inserting ``20 years''; and
       (4) by redesignating the second subsection (e) as 
     subsection (f).

     SEC. 207. GENERAL MODIFICATIONS OF FEDERAL MURDER CRIME AND 
                   RELATED CRIMES.

       Section 1112(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``ten years'' and inserting ``20 years''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``six years'' and inserting ``10 years''.

TITLE III--PROTECTING STATE AND LOCAL JUDGES AND RELATED GRANT PROGRAMS

     SEC. 301. GRANTS TO STATES TO PROTECT WITNESSES AND VICTIMS 
                   OF CRIMES.

       (a) In General.--Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) by a State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe 
     to create and expand witness and victim protection programs 
     to prevent threats, intimidation, and retaliation against 
     victims of, and witnesses to, violent crimes.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 31707 of the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 
     U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to carry out this 
     subtitle.''.

     SEC. 302. ELIGIBILITY OF STATE COURTS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL 
                   GRANTS.

       (a) Correctional Options Grants.--Section 515 of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3762a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) grants to State courts to improve security for State 
     and local court systems.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting after the period the 
     following:


[[Page S4655]]


     ``Priority shall be given to State court applicants under 
     subsection (a)(4) that have the greatest demonstrated need to 
     provide security in order to administer justice.''.
       (b) Allocations.--Section 516(a) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3762b) is 
     amended by--
       (1) striking ``80'' and inserting ``70'';
       (2) striking ``and 10'' and inserting ``10''; and
       (3) inserting before the period the following: ``, and 10 
     percent for section 515(a)(4)''.
       (c) State and Local Governments to Consider Courts.--The 
     Attorney General may require, as appropriate, that whenever a 
     State or unit of local government or Indian tribe applies for 
     a grant from the Department of Justice, the State, unit, or 
     tribe demonstrate that, in developing the application and 
     distributing funds, the State, unit, or tribe--
       (1) considered the needs of the judicial branch of the 
     State, unit, or tribe, as the case may be;
       (2) consulted with the chief judicial officer of the 
     highest court of the State, unit, or tribe, as the case may 
     be; and
       (3) consulted with the chief law enforcement officer of the 
     law enforcement agency responsible for the security needs of 
     the judicial branch of the State, unit, or tribe, as the case 
     may be.
       (d) Armor Vests.--Section 2501 of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and State and local 
     court officers'' after ``tribal law enforcement officers''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``State or local 
     court,'' after ``government,''.

                   TITLE IV--LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

     SEC. 401. REPORT ON SECURITY OF FEDERAL PROSECUTORS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a 
     report on the security of assistant United States attorneys 
     and other Federal attorneys arising from the prosecution of 
     terrorists, violent criminal gangs, drug traffickers, gun 
     traffickers, white supremacists, those who commit fraud and 
     other white-collar offenses, and other criminal cases.
       (b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall describe each of the following:
       (1) The number and nature of threats and assaults against 
     attorneys handling prosecutions described in subsection (a) 
     and the reporting requirements and methods.
       (2) The security measures that are in place to protect the 
     attorneys who are handling prosecutions described in 
     subsection (a), including threat assessments, response 
     procedures, availability of security systems and other 
     devices, firearms licensing (deputations), and other measures 
     designed to protect the attorneys and their families.
       (3) The firearms deputation policies of the Department of 
     Justice, including the number of attorneys deputized and the 
     time between receipt of threat and completion of the 
     deputation and training process.
       (4) For each requirement, measure, or policy described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (3), when the requirement, measure, or 
     policy was developed and who was responsible for developing 
     and implementing the requirement, measure, or policy.
       (5) The programs that are made available to the attorneys 
     for personal security training, including training relating 
     to limitations on public information disclosure, basic home 
     security, firearms handling and safety, family safety, mail 
     handling, counter-surveillance, and self-defense tactics.
       (6) The measures that are taken to provide attorneys 
     handling prosecutions described in subsection (a) with secure 
     parking facilities, and how priorities for such facilities 
     are established--
       (A) among Federal employees within the facility;
       (B) among Department of Justice employees within the 
     facility; and
       (C) among attorneys within the facility.
       (7) The frequency attorneys handling prosecutions described 
     in subsection (a) are called upon to work beyond standard 
     work hours and the security measures provided to protect 
     attorneys at such times during travel between office and 
     available parking facilities.
       (8) With respect to attorneys who are licensed under State 
     laws to carry firearms, the policy of the Department of 
     Justice as to--
       (A) carrying the firearm between available parking and 
     office buildings;
       (B) securing the weapon at the office buildings; and
       (C) equipment and training provided to facilitate safe 
     storage at Department of Justice facilities.
       (9) The offices in the Department of Justice that are 
     responsible for ensuring the security of attorneys handling 
     prosecutions described in subsection (a), the organization 
     and staffing of the offices, and the manner in which the 
     offices coordinate with offices in specific districts.
       (10) The role, if any, that the United States Marshals 
     Service or any other Department of Justice component plays in 
     protecting, or providing security services or training for, 
     attorneys handling prosecutions described in subsection (a).

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. EXPANDED PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED 
                   STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 995 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) The Commission may--
       ``(1) use available funds to enter into contracts for the 
     acquisition of severable services for a period that begins in 
     1 fiscal year and ends in the next fiscal year, to the same 
     extent as executive agencies may enter into such contracts 
     under the authority of section 303L of the Federal Property 
     and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253l);
       ``(2) enter into multi-year contracts for the acquisition 
     of property or services to the same extent as executive 
     agencies may enter into such contracts under the authority of 
     section 304B of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 254c); and
       ``(3) make advance, partial, progress, or other payments 
     under contracts for property or services to the same extent 
     as executive agencies may make such payments under the 
     authority of section 305 of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 255).''.
       (b) Sunset.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
     cease to have force and effect on September 30, 2010.

     SEC. 502. BANKRUPTCY, MAGISTRATE, AND TERRITORIAL JUDGES LIFE 
                   INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 604(a)(5) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after ``hold office 
     during good behavior,'' the following: ``bankruptcy judges 
     appointed under section 152 of this title, magistrate judges 
     appointed under section 631 of this title, and territorial 
     district court judges appointed under section 24 of the 
     Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 1424b), section 1(b) of the 
     Act of November 8, 1877 (48 U.S.C. 1821), or section 24(a) of 
     the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 
     1614(a)),''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to any payment made on or after the 
     first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 503. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES.

       Section 296 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting at the end of the second undesignated paragraph the 
     following new sentence: ``However, a judge who has retired 
     from regular active service under section 371(b) of this 
     title, when designated and assigned to the court to which 
     such judge was appointed, shall have all the powers of a 
     judge of that court, including participation in appointment 
     of court officers and magistrates, rulemaking, governance, 
     and administrative matters.''.

     SEC. 504. SENIOR JUDGE PARTICIPATION IN THE SELECTION OF 
                   MAGISTRATES.

       Section 631(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``Northern Mariana Islands'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``Northern Mariana Islands (including 
     any judge in regular active service and any judge who has 
     retired from regular active service under section 371(b) of 
     this title, when designated and assigned to the court to 
     which such judge was appointed)''.

     SEC. 505. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT.

       Section 405 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 
     U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2011''.

     SEC. 506. FEDERAL JUDGES FOR COURTS OF APPEALS.

       Section 44(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     in the table--
       (1) in the item relating to the District of Columbia 
     Circuit, by striking ``12'' and inserting ``11''; and
       (2) in the item relating to the Ninth Circuit, by striking 
     ``28'' and inserting ``29''.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of S. 378, the 
Court Security Improvement Act. But before I do, I wish to address 
remarks made this morning by the majority whip, the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois, for whom I have a lot of respect, but I have to 
tell you, I disagree with those comments, and I wish to take a few 
moments to explain why.
  Throughout his comments, the Senator repeated the theme that 
Republicans were stopping debate on the floor and not allowing bills to 
be debated. I disagree with him, and I believe nothing could be farther 
from the truth. The truth is, as I see it, the majority has tried to 
force things through the Senate, and they have done so in a way that 
has denied the minority an opportunity to offer amendments and to allow 
this body, the so-called world's greatest deliberative body, to

[[Page S4656]]

even have votes and make decisions on those important amendments.
  This morning, the Democratic whip talked about our Founders' intent 
that ``minority rights would always be respected.'' In this body, 
minority rights are not being respected. That is the problem. So we 
have no choice but to assert the last protection against majority 
tyranny; that is, to object or vote against invoking cloture or closing 
off debate.
  In the past, the majority has used cloture when necessary to move a 
bill forward, after debate has been exhausted, but the minority refuses 
to allow movement on the legislation. I think that is a perfectly 
legitimate use of the cloture motion.
  By this date in the 109th Congress--the Congress just preceding the 
current Congress--Republicans, when they were in the majority, had 
filed cloture four times. In the 108th Congress--the immediately 
preceding Congress--at this point in time, when Republicans were in the 
majority, Republicans had filed cloture five times. In the 107th 
Congress, Republicans only filed cloture one time at this point in 
time.
  By comparison, since the Democrats have now become the new majority 
in the Senate, Democrats have filed cloture 22 times. The question 
naturally arises: Why are Democrats using this divisive tactic so 
frequently to close off debate?
  Well, I think my colleague from Illinois disclosed the reason this 
morning when he stated:

       Ultimately, they will be held accountable for their 
     strategy. That is what elections are all about.

  It is the view from this Senator, from my perspective, the Democrats 
are using this tactic to paint Republicans as obstructionists, when the 
exact opposite is true. The new Democratic majority in the Senate is 
refusing to allow full and fair debate on issue after issue and, more 
importantly, denying us an opportunity to offer amendments on important 
legislation and to simply have an up-or-down vote on those amendments.
  I can tell you, from my perspective, Republicans do not enjoy the 
procedural clash any more than Democrats do. But it is necessary to 
protect this institution and, even more importantly, necessary to 
protect the rights afforded in the Senate to the minority.
  We have been eager to engage in full debate, and we understand the 
rules that majorities will prevail when majorities have an opportunity 
to vote. But the rules do not permit the new majority, the Democrats, 
to unilaterally set the terms for the debate. Until the Democratic 
majority recognizes all Members of this body have the right to debate 
legislation, to offer amendments, and to have votes on those 
amendments, we will continue in this standoff.
  It is true, I believe, that only the majority--the new Democratic 
majority--can fix this problem by simply allowing full debate to go 
forward and by allowing up-or-down votes on amendments on the Senate 
floor, which requires discussions, which requires negotiations, and, 
yes, it requires compromise.
  Filing cloture--closing off debate--is an intensely aggressive move. 
It says: We do not want to hear your opinions. We do not want to hear 
your views. We do not want to consider your ideas on how to improve the 
legislation on the floor of the Senate. We want to shut down the 
debate, and we want to shove this legislation through the Senate. It is 
a ``my way or the highway'' approach to legislation. And do you know 
what. It does not work.
  I would point out--and I guess it is fair to say if you have been in 
the Senate long enough--and I have not--but I have been told, if you 
have been in the Senate long enough, you will find yourself, at some 
points in your career, on the side of the majority, and at other times 
you will find yourself on the side of the minority. It is the way it 
works.
  Last Congress, when Democrats were in the minority, they insisted 
that the filing of cloture turned the Senate into the House of 
Representatives--a refusal to allow open and broad debate, with hard 
majority rule. Here they are now, though, attempting to cut off debate 
at, it seems, almost every possible turn. It is the reason--and this is 
the consequence of it; it is not just complaining about it; this is the 
consequence that has a very real impact on the American people because 
the new majority, the Democratic majority, has refused an opportunity 
for full and fair debate and votes on amendments--that is the reason 
why Democrats have not sent any real legislation to the President for 
his signature after 3 months in power. They have chosen the hard edge 
of party politics instead of bipartisanship.

  Our Democratic friends have chosen to pursue this agenda driven by 
campaign rhetoric instead of seeking the broad middle ground and trying 
to negotiate and to pass legislation on behalf of the American people. 
It is true that Democrats won the last election--and my congratulations 
to them--on a message of bipartisanship, on a message of, let's get 
things done. But their choices to date have not reflected any effort to 
seriously reach across the aisle to do that.
  One example that comes to mind is on Iraq. My colleague from Illinois 
claimed:

       We were stopped, stopped by the Republican minority. They 
     would not allow us to go to the substance of that debate. 
     They didn't want the Senate to spend its time on the floor 
     considering a resolution, going on record as to whether we 
     approve or disapprove of the President's action.

  The fact is, completely the opposite occurred. Republicans on this 
incredibly important debate asked only that we be allowed to discuss 
the issue fully, and the Democratic majority repeatedly attempted to 
ram through their resolution without offering any alternatives or any 
opportunity for alternative resolutions to be considered and voted on. 
We explained this on the Senate floor over and over during that 
discussion, but our colleagues in the majority simply turned a deaf ear 
to our concerns. When they finally allowed several options to be 
considered, we were able to have a full debate we had been asking for 
all along, and then the process moved forward.
  I would point out that was on the 20th iteration of the resolutions 
on Iraq before we had an opportunity to have that debate, a vote, and 
to move the process forward.
  My colleague from Illinois repeated several times this morning his 
hope that we could ``find some ways to establish bipartisan 
cooperation.''
  I say to my colleague, there is a way to do that. The majority must 
stop trying to ram legislation through and allow us to debate openly 
and to file relevant amendments and allow an up-or-down vote on those 
amendments.
  My colleague from Illinois talked about the ``do-nothing Congress'' 
of last year--that was his phraseology--and placed sole blame for the 
current majority's lack of accomplishments on the minority's refusal to 
invoke cloture or close off debate. The Washington Post just this 
morning reported that only 26 percent of the public thinks the current 
Democratic majority in Congress has accomplished ``a great deal'' or 
``a good amount.''
  The fact is, this approach to legislating has not produced a single 
piece of significant legislation so far in this Congress due to the 
lack of bipartisanship and due to the lack of opportunity the minority 
has had to fully participate in the debate and shaping of legislation. 
Of the 17 laws enacted this Congress, 10 of those are naming of Federal 
properties. Let me say that again. Of the 17 pieces of legislation 
enacted in this Congress so far, 10 of them involve naming of Federal 
properties, Federal buildings, post offices and the like. Not one of 
the ``six for '06'' campaign promises has been passed by Congress.
  The majority, to be sure, is blaming the minority for the lack of 
progress here based on the result of cloture votes, but let's look at 
the facts.
  On the 9/11 bill, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the 
House and the Senate passed different bills. Democratic leadership in 
neither body has brought up the other's bill so that those might be 
resolved in a conference committee.
  On the minimum wage bill, the House and the Senate passed different 
versions, but no conferees have been appointed by either body.
  On the emergency war supplemental, perhaps the most urgent piece of 
legislation we could possibly pass and send to the President to support 
the troops who are in harm's way as I speak, the House and the Senate 
passed different versions of the bill. The House, fresh off of a 2-week 
recess, has yet to appoint conferees to start working out

[[Page S4657]]

the differences between the bills to get funding to our troops. This is 
especially damaging and reckless, considering the majority is insisting 
we send a bill to the President that has a timeline for withdrawal, a 
provision that has caused the President to promise to veto that 
legislation. That means before the troops can get the money they need--
in other words, to get them the equipment they need during this war--
before we can get them the money, we have to come up with a bill the 
President will sign. Yet the Democratic majority has continued to play 
politics and stall the bill.
  On stem cell research, no conferees have been appointed. The same for 
the budget. The same for lobbying reform. The list goes on and on.
  The distinguished Senator from Illinois, the Democratic whip, 
explained that due to the numbers in this body:

       On any given day, if we're going to pass or consider 
     important legislation, it has to be bipartisan.

  And that:

       If we're going to be constructive in the United States 
     Senate, we need much more bipartisan cooperation.

  He continued, saying:

       We should come together, Democrats and Republicans, and 
     compromise and cooperate.

  And asking,

       Isn't it time we really start out on a new day in the 
     Congress trying to find bipartisan ways to cooperate and 
     solve the real problems that face our country?

  To that I say amen. It is past time for the new majority in this body 
to stop acting like they are Members of the House of Representatives 
who are going to be able to force their will by a simple majority 
through the Senate because this is not the House. This is the Senate. 
The only way we are going to be able to get any legislation passed is 
through bipartisan cooperation. The only way we are going to get that 
cooperation is to meet in the middle somehow, to debate as our 
constituents would expect us to debate, to take positions--yes, firmly 
held positions--based on our convictions. But then ultimately we need 
to have votes on amendments and votes on legislation and let the 
majority prevail. Let's send the bills to the President for his 
signature. That is the way it is supposed to work. That is the way it 
has not been working, but we know the way forward.
  I have to tell my colleagues that I and my Republican colleagues 
would welcome the opportunity to sit down on a bipartisan basis and to 
reach a consensus on important issues such as how to preserve our 
entitlement programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare 
by protecting their long-term solvency. How do we avoid passing the 
bills incurred by the baby boomer generation on down to our children 
and grandchildren? How can we expand health care access to more 
Americans? How can we solve our broken immigration system, along with 
the broken borders that pose a national security risk to each and every 
American citizen? After all, I have to believe that is the reason we 
ran for public office. That is the reason we wanted to be elected to 
serve in the Senate--whether we are a Republican or a Democrat--to make 
a difference for the American people, to make our country a better 
place, and to make tomorrow better for our children and grandchildren 
than it is today. Instead, we spend day after day taking partisan votes 
that lead to nothing but gridlock. This is the choice of the majority, 
not the choice of the minority.
  After the first 100 days, the Congress is, again, at a fork in the 
road. So far the new majority has taken the path of partisanship, but 
we know that will not get us down the road to progress. I hope during 
the second 100 days of this new Congress, the new majority will pause 
and decide to take the road less traveled--the road of cooperation and 
accomplishment.
  Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on the Court Security 
Improvement Act, a bill of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. As we 
have already heard, this bill is designed to address the critical issue 
of the security of our judges and courthouse personnel. I have to add 
as a personal note, this is not a matter of just some academic interest 
to me. I believe I am correct in that I am the only current Member of 
the Senate who has served as a member of the judiciary, in my case for 
13 years in our State court system in Texas, both at the trial bench 
and at the Texas Supreme Court level. So this is more than a matter of 
academic interest to me. Protecting our men and women who personify the 
rule of law and all that it means is very important.
  The dedicated men and women who work in America's courthouses, from 
the judges to the court reporters to the bailiffs, preside each day 
over difficult, contentious, and sometimes very emotional disputes.
  These public servants, just like our police, are placed in harm's way 
by the very nature of their jobs. They fulfill essential roles that 
keep our democracy running smoothly, and I have the greatest respect 
for the people who try to do this job and try to do it well.
  Unfortunately, violence directed at public servants is on the rise, 
from escalating violence against police officers to courthouse 
attacks--including in my State of Texas--these despicable actions 
threaten the administration of justice and threaten our ability to 
invoke the rule of law.
  This Congress has the power, and now we must exercise it, to ensure 
that certain and swift punishment awaits those who engage in these 
unconscionable acts of violence. The administration of justice--indeed, 
the health of our very democracy--depends on our ability to attract 
dedicated public servants to work at our courthouses. So we must do 
everything in our power to provide adequate security to these men and 
women who are too often targeted for violence or harassment simply 
because of the position they hold and the decisions they are called 
upon to make.
  As a former attorney general in my State, I had the responsibility of 
defending sentences on appeal of certain defendants who had been found 
guilty of violent acts. So I am acutely aware of the devastating 
effects criminal acts of violence have on not only the victims 
themselves but also on their families. Because I also used to be a 
judge, I am fortunate to have a number of close personal friends who 
continue to serve on our benches and work at our courthouses. I 
personally know judges and their families who have been victims of 
violence, and I have grieved with those victims and their families.
  Our judges are impartial umpires of the law. We know they cannot help 
but disappoint some people because that is what they do--they make 
decisions. They determine winners and losers. Judges, witnesses, and 
courthouse personnel must not face threats and violence for simply 
doing their job.
  The protection of the men and women who compose our judicial system 
and serve the public and law enforcement is essential to the proper 
administration of justice in our country. This important bill takes big 
steps toward providing additional protections on these dedicated public 
servants. I urge my colleagues to give it their full support.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Supreme Court Ruling on Abortion Ban

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this morning, I heard my friend and 
colleague, Senator Brownback, on the floor speaking about the decision 
of the Supreme Court. He and I both chair the Senate's Cancer 
Coalition, so it has been a great pleasure for me to work with him. But 
we have very different views when it comes to a woman's right to 
choose, and I would like to rise today to express my concern and deep 
dismay regarding the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Gonzales 
v. Carhart.
  This judgment today is a major strike against a woman's right to 
choose. The Court, in this case, by a narrow 5-to-4 margin, has 
essentially enacted the first Federal abortion ban in this country and 
has struck down a primary requirement of Roe v. Wade--protection of the 
health of a mother.
  In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote:


[[Page S4658]]


       Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and 
     Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, Federal 
     intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary 
     and proper in certain cases by the American College of 
     Obstetrics and Gynecologists. It blurs the line firmly drawn 
     in Casey between pre-viability and post- viability abortions. 
     And for the first time since Roe, the court blesses a 
     prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

  This is simply shocking. It is shocking because this can affect any 
second-trimester abortion.
  Just 7 years ago, the Supreme Court struck down this very ban in 
Stenberg v. Carhart in the year 2000. It struck it down out of concern 
that it did not provide adequate protections for a woman's health and 
that the law enacted was too vague. The Federal courts, the Fifth and 
the Ninth Circuits, have all examined this and opposed it. No Federal 
Court has upheld this abortion ban until today.
  Now, what has changed in the 7 years? The answer is nothing, except 
the composition of the Court. The additions of Chief Justice Roberts 
and Justice Alito have accomplished what the Bush administration has 
sought from its earliest days--a court willing to further restrict a 
woman's right to choose.
  When they appeared before the Judiciary Committee during their 
confirmation hearings, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito 
affirmed their respect for stare decisis as preeminent and a 
controlling factor. In these hearings, Chief Justice Roberts said, and 
I quote:

       People expect that the law is going to be what the court 
     has told them the law is going to be. And that's an important 
     consideration.

  Justice Alito said, and I quote:

       I've agreed, I think numerous times during these hearings, 
     that when a decision is reaffirmed, that strengthens its 
     value as stare decisis.
  With Justice O'Connor no longer on the Court, the majority of 
Justices ignored what Senator Specter referred to as ``super 
precedent'' in these hearings.
  As Justice Ginsburg points out:

       The Court admits that ``moral concerns'' are at work, 
     concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortions.

  She continues:

       Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an 
     autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety. This 
     way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place 
     in the family and under the Constitution--ideas that have 
     long since been discredited.

  The Court, now filled with Bush appointees, is replacing the judicial 
precedent that they promised to respect for their definition of 
morality. That is where I see us as being today. With this ruling, the 
Supreme Court has substituted the medical decisions of politicians for 
that of doctors.
  In the Congressional findings of the legislation creating this ban, 
as well as the majority opinion of the Court, politicians and Justices 
decided what procedures are medically necessary and which are not. 
Justice Kennedy wrote, in today's majority decision, that the Court 
assumed the abortion ban would ``be unconstitutional if it subjected 
women to significant health risks.'' He goes on to declare ``safe 
medical options are available.''
  However, doctors who perform these procedures disagree. The American 
College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the group that represents more 
than 90 percent of all OB/GYN specialists in the country, assembled an 
expert panel that identified several specific instances in which this 
procedure, intact dilation and extraction, has meaningful safety 
advantages over other medical options.
  The procedure is safer for women with serious underlying medical 
conditions, including liver disease, bleeding and clotting disorders, 
and compromised immune systems.
  Experts also testified that this procedure is significantly safer for 
women carrying fetuses with certain abnormalities, including severe 
hydrocephalus. That is when the head fills with water and is very often 
larger than the body. In these rare and heartbreaking cases in which a 
woman learns that something has gone tragically wrong in a pregnancy 
she very much wanted, no woman should be forced to bear the added 
burden of undergoing a medical procedure that is not the safest option.
  The decision today unquestionably breaks new ground. I am extremely 
concerned that this has opened the door to a further judicial 
interference in what should be private medical decisions made by women, 
their partners, their religious beliefs, and their doctors. With this 
decision, the Roberts Court is signaling a new willingness to uphold 
additional restrictions on abortion, even those that do not expressly 
protect a woman's health. This is dangerous.
  The Roberts Court has also opened the door for a major change in how 
it will determine whether a law unconstitutionally restricts a woman's 
rights. Generally, laws have been struck down when they are 
unconstitutional on their face, because if a law is unconstitutional 
for 10 people or 10 million people, then it should not stand. The Court 
is turning that analysis on its head. The Court's opinion today says it 
may uphold laws, even when they may be unconstitutional.
  This means that in the future a woman could be put in an untenable 
situation. A woman facing a health crisis needs to act within days or 
weeks but instead would need to depend on the legal system. Let me give 
you an example.
  A woman learns her pregnancy has gone tragically wrong and her health 
is at risk. She is told by the doctor that there exists a medical 
procedure that would help her, but it is banned. The alternatives will 
risk her health.
  She has to go to court and argue that her constitutional rights, in 
this specific instance, have been violated.
  We all know the wheels of justice spin slowly. It is doubtful the 
system could respond in a timely manner to a woman in this kind of 
crisis. If she can prove her case, she might be allowed to have the 
procedure, but the ban itself would still remain in place, requiring 
the next woman in a similar situation to have to successfully 
demonstrate that the law is unconstitutional. This is amazing. The 
Court, in effect, is requiring that women's health be at risk until it 
deems enough women have demonstrated the negative impact of the law on 
them. Requiring this type of legal challenge to any restriction on 
abortion will impact women in the most vulnerable situations.
  I would like, for a moment, to quote Justice Ginsburg. She points 
out:

       Those views, this Court made clear in Casey, ``are no 
     longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the 
     individual, or the Constitution.'' . . . Women, it is now 
     acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ``to 
     participate equally in the social life of this Nation.''

  In this, incidentally, she is quoting Sandra Day O'Connor in places 
in an earlier decision.

       Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court 
     recognized, is intimately connected to ``their ability to 
     control their reproductive lives.'' . . . Thus, legal 
     challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do 
     not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; 
     rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her 
     life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.
       In keeping with this comprehension of the right to 
     reproductive choice, the Court has consistently required that 
     laws regulating abortion, at any stage of pregnancy and in 
     all cases, safeguard a woman's health.

  This is now out the window. It is monumental.
  In conclusion, I remember what it was like when abortion was illegal 
in America. It was when I was a college student at Stanford. I watched 
the passing of the plate to collect money so young women could go to 
Tijuana for an abortion. I knew a woman who ended her life because she 
was pregnant. In the 1960s, while abortion was still illegal, as a 
member of the California Board of Terms and Parole, I sentenced women 
convicted of illegally performing abortions. I saw the morbidity that 
they caused by their procedures. It was barbaric in those days. So I am 
very concerned with this ruling.
  The Court is taking the first major step back to these days of 30, 40 
years ago. Young women today have not had these experiences. They have 
lived only in an era in which the Court recognized their autonomy, 
their right to make their own medical decisions. If I were a young 
woman today, I would be incredibly concerned that this era is drawing 
to a close. The threat on reproductive freedom is no longer 
theoretical. Today it is very real. All those who care about protecting 
a woman's right to privacy should take notice and make their voices 
heard.

[[Page S4659]]

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the minority allowing 
us to move to this bill, this most important bill, dealing with court 
security. But here we go again; nothing happening on it. I am willing 
to have Democrats and Republicans debate these amendments. There have 
been some that have been filed but not offered.
  I just left a meeting in my office with the head of the U.S. Marshals 
Service. His name is John Clark. He indicated to me, among other 
things, that this year there has been a 17-percent increase in the 
threats against our Federal judges, Supreme Court Justices, and all our 
other Federal judges; about 11,000, I think that is what he told me. I 
may have that number a little bit wrong; I just left him a minute ago.
  This is important legislation. It allows our Federal judges not to 
have to list the names of their children, where they live, where the 
individual judge lives. We had in Illinois a terrible situation where 
one of these disgruntled defendants in a criminal case went to some 
judge's home and waited for the family to come home and killed them.
  We need to move this bill. I don't want a hue and cry from the 
minority that we are not allowing amendments; we want amendments. If 
people want to amend this bill, let them do it. But I am going to file 
cloture on this bill tonight for a Friday cloture vote. We have got to 
complete legislation around here. We cannot come here each day and sit 
around looking at each other. We should be doing some legislating.
  If people do not like this bipartisan bill that is now before the 
Senate, offer an amendment to change it. I am not going to give my 
speech--I have given it too many times--on our being thwarted in 
efforts to move forward on improving the intelligence services of this 
country. I don't need to give a speech about our inability to negotiate 
for lower prices of prescription drugs. But we are now on court 
security. I had to file cloture on that. After cloture was invoked, 
they allowed us to move to the bill, saving us 27 hours or 28 hours on 
it. I do not think it is appropriate that we stand around here today 
and tomorrow.
  We have a bill that is bipartisan to its very core, a competitiveness 
bill. Senator Bingaman, a Democrat, and Senator Alexander, a 
Republican, have worked on this bill. This is their pride and joy. It 
is the legislation that will improve this country's ability to be more 
competitive scientifically. I want to move to that bill and finish it 
this week. I cannot while this is still around with nothing being done 
on it.
  I alert everyone within the sound of my voice, if you don't like this 
bill, come and amend it. Lay down an amendment and we will debate it, 
we will table it, we will approve it, we will vote, and it won't be 
passed.
  But our judges, our U.S. Marshals, our U.S. attorneys need this. In 
my heart I so understand the importance. I said this morning here, this 
legislation will also help State courts, not only Federal courts. In 
Washoe County, Reno, NV, a divorce proceeding was going forward. A very 
rich man, quite frankly, didn't like what was happening in the divorce 
proceeding, so this man killed his wife in her home--they were 
divorced, his ex-wife. The child was in the house, and he took her in 
the garage, slit her throat, killed her, took the car, drove to a 
garage, took his hunting rifle, and from 200 yards from a parking lot 
shot through a window and hit the judge.
  That window should have had bulletproof glass in it. It didn't. This 
bill will allow local jurisdictions to have the ability to obtain items 
such as bulletproof glass.
  We are living in a violent society. We have to, with our judiciary, 
which is so independent and strong, do what we can to protect it. I was 
in Ecuador with a congressional delegation. The President of that 
country, when I told him a little story--and we were in the Embassy. 
The President of Ecuador was standing next to me, and I told him about 
the 2000 Presidential election.
  I said: You know, that is an interesting election. President Bush got 
less votes than the person he beat. The matter went to Florida where 
there was so much confusion and consternation in counting the votes 
there. The matter worked its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme 
Court decided that George Bush would be President of the United States. 
The minute that was done, I said, in Ecuador: George Bush became my 
President.
  In our great country, which is ruled by law, not by men, there was 
not a tire burned, a window broken, a demonstration held, because we 
are a country of laws, and George Bush became everybody's President. I 
did not like the decision of the Supreme Court; I disagreed with it. 
But that is the law, that is the law of our country.
  When I finished, the President of Ecuador said: I only wish we had a 
court system like yours.
  That is what this bill is all about, to try to have our court system 
one that is as strong as it has been.
  So if my friends on the other side of the aisle come here and say, as 
they have done on a number of occasions: Well, we didn't have a chance 
to offer an amendment--we finished this vote early today. They have had 
all day to offer all of the amendments they wanted. Democrats had every 
opportunity, if they do not like this bill, to offer an amendment to 
change it. But we are going to complete this bill by Friday one way or 
the other.
  Now, Mr. President, it is possible under the rules that when we vote 
on Friday on cloture on the bill--we are on the bill now. It could be 
30 hours, but everyone here should understand, we are going to be in 
session 30 hours after cloture is invoked.
  We are not going to play around here, and think, well, we will finish 
it next week. We are going to finish this bill this week, if it takes 
Saturday or Sunday or whatever it takes, and everyone should understand 
that.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the Senate at this time is 
a bill to make our courts safer. This is an issue we take personally in 
Chicago because in 2005, one of our most respected Federal judges had 
her mother and husband killed in her home, murdered by an upset 
individual who didn't like the way he was treated in a courtroom. He 
stalked her family, invaded her home, killed her aging mother, and 
husband, who was the love of her life. I know this judge because I 
appointed her to the Federal bench. I have met her daughters and I know 
her close friends in Chicago. I think about her every time the issue of 
court security comes up. She is a wonderful woman who has devoted her 
life to public service. She has put in the time that we expect from 
real professionals. She has done her best to be fair and just. She 
works hard. We owe her security in the workplace and security for her 
family.
  That is why Senator Obama and I introduced an appropriations bill 
right after this happened, trying to put some money into the U.S. 
Marshals Service to protect judges across the United States. That is 
what this bill is all about. There is nothing partisan about this 
legislation. There is nothing even controversial about it. This bill 
should have been passed quickly, sent to the House and approved because 
it makes a better effort to protect these judges in their homes, gives 
more resources to U.S. marshals, puts stiffer penalties in for those 
who harass and shoot at and kill those who serve us in the judiciary. 
This is basic common sense. Instead of taking up this bill and passing 
it quickly, as we should have to get it in place and to put the 
protections in place, it has been slowed down.
  One of our colleagues is exercising his rights under the Senate 
rules. I said earlier I will fight for him to have the right to speak 
it, on any bill, to offer

[[Page S4660]]

an amendment to it, to express himself, and to have the Senate decide 
finally what the decision will be on his amendment. I respect his right 
to do that. But instead we are going to slow this bill down for 2 days. 
We will have amendments filed, six, and they are just going to sit on 
the desk while the clock runs. Instead of moving to other legislation 
which is critically important we will just sit here. That is unfair. I 
don't think that is consistent with what the American people expect of 
the Senate.
  I have called on my colleagues, the one who has six amendments filed 
and any who have other amendments, please bring them to the floor right 
now, within the next hour. Let's start the debate right now. Let's set 
them for a vote as quickly as possible. Let's stop these stall tactics 
on bills as basic as this, protecting the personal security of judges 
across America.
  It is time for us to get down to business in the Senate. Look around 
at all the empty chairs. Look for the person who sponsored the 
amendments to this bill. You won't find him.
  It is time for us to get down to business in the Senate. People 
expect us to. This week has been a pretty horrible week when you look 
at it. We came in here trying to pass a bill that would authorize 
intelligence agencies across our Government to make America safer, 16 
different intelligence agencies, a bipartisan bill, worked on long and 
hard by Senator Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, 
and his staff, and Senator Bond and his staff. The bill was ready to 
go, a bill which should have passed years ago, stopped in its tracks by 
the Republican minority that said, no. Vice President Cheney objects to 
a provision in the bill relative to the interrogation of prisoners; 
imagine that he would raise that issue again. Therefore, all 
Republicans, with maybe a couple exceptions, are going to stop debate 
on the bill. That was strike 1.
  Strike 2, a provision to amend the Medicare Prescription Drug Act so 
that we could have more competition and lower prices for seniors and 
disabled when they buy drugs. Some agree with it; some disagree. The 
pharmaceutical industry hates it; it cuts into their profits. It was 
worth a debate to see whether we could help seniors pay for their drugs 
and lower prices. But, no, the Republican minority said: No, we are not 
going to even debate that. We won't let you go to that. It is within 
their power to stop us, and they did it again.
  Now comes this bill for court security, and for the third strike this 
week, the Republicans have said: No, we want to slow you down. We want 
to run out the clock. We want to put amendments on the table and not 
call them for consideration.
  It is becoming increasingly clear what the Republican game plan is. 
We have seen it this week on three pieces of legislation. We see it 
with this bill. I have spoken to majority leader Senator Reid who spoke 
moments ago. We have important business to do. In fact, we have 
business which is very bipartisan. This bill, which has been slowed 
down by one Republican Senator, has as cosponsors Senators Specter, 
Cornyn, Collins, and Hatch, all Republican Senators. It is a bipartisan 
bill. It is not even controversial. Why aren't we doing this? It isn't 
as if there are other things going on on the Senate floor. We are 
waiting on the Senators who want to stop or slow down this bill to 
finally come and do their business. It is not too much to ask. I 
understand we are all busy. From time to time we have to leave the Hill 
to go to a committee meeting. I know I filed an amendment and waited a 
while to call it. But now this Senator has had his time. He has had the 
whole day. We should call up one amendment before we go home, just in 
good faith, to indicate that this is really a serious effort, that 
there is a substantive reason to slow down this important legislation. 
We need to remind our colleagues of our responsibility to do the 
people's business.


                                  Iraq

  I just joined the majority leader and others in meeting with the 
President of the United States to talk about the war in Iraq. I am glad 
we had this meeting. We didn't reach a new agreement or compromise. I 
wish we had. We started a dialog, and that is important. There were 
heartfelt emotions expressed at that meeting by many of us on both 
sides of the issue, by the President, as well as by Senator Reid and 
myself and many others. Speaker Pelosi was there. The majority leader 
of the House, Steny Hoyer, was in attendance, as was Jim Clyborn, the 
majority whip, and the Republican leadership. We talked about the war 
in Iraq at length and where we need to go.
  It is our belief that if we don't include language in the 
appropriations bill which says to the Iraqis that we are not going to 
stay there indefinitely, they are going to drag their feet forever when 
it comes to making the political reforms that are necessary. We are 
going to leave our soldiers stuck in the middle of a civil war. Mr. 
President, 3,311 Americans have died in service to this country while 
serving in Iraq. These are our best and bravest. They have given their 
lives, and they continue to give their lives while we debate and delay. 
It is time for us to move forward.
  I suggested to the President in the moments that I had to express my 
point of view, if he won't accept a timetable for starting to bring 
American troops home, can't we at least hold the Iraqis to the 
timetable that they have offered us for political reform? They have 
missed deadline after deadline. They promised to bring their country 
together. They promised to bring their army into a leadership that will 
be effective. They have promised to try to resolve the old differences 
from the Baath Party under Saddam Hussein. Promise after promise after 
promise they have failed to keep while our soldiers fight and die every 
single day.


                                 Darfur

  Despite the obvious differences from that meeting, there was one 
hopeful sign. We started the meeting, and I began by praising President 
Bush for delivering a speech today at the U.S. Holocaust Museum on the 
subject of the genocide in Darfur. It was the appropriate venue for the 
speech. The Holocaust Museum offers a powerful backdrop to consider the 
horrors of genocide. I am glad the President made this speech. I 
applaud him for making it. I had hoped that he would be a little bit 
stronger, but I understand, speaking personally with the President, 
that he wants to give new U.N. General Secretary Ban Ki-moon some time 
to use his office effectively.
  The President essentially today, though, by every measure, gave Sudan 
a final warning, and it is about time. The President stated that within 
a ``short period of time,'' to use his words, President Bashir of Sudan 
must take the following steps: Allow the deployment of the full joint 
African Union-United Nations peacekeeping force in the area of Darfur 
where somewhere near 400,000 people have been murdered and over 2 
million displaced. The President of Sudan must also end support for the 
Jingaweit militia, reach out to rebel leaders, allow humanitarian aid 
to reach the people of Darfur, and end his obstructionism. If he does 
not, President Bush stated, the United States will respond.
  First, the U.S. will tighten economic sanctions on the Sudanese 
Government and the companies it controls. Second, the President will 
also levy sanctions against individuals who are responsible for the 
violence. Third, the U.S. will introduce a new U.N. Security Council 
resolution to apply multilateral sanctions against the Government of 
Sudan and impose an expanded arms embargo. This resolution will impose 
a ban on Sudanese offensive military flights over Darfur.
  Last fall the President's special envoy talked about a January 1st 
deadline after which the United States would impose sanctions that 
would cripple the Sudanese oil industry. That deadline is months behind 
us, and the sanctions the President outlined are not as potent as they 
might be in terms of truly hitting the oil industry as I hoped they 
would.
  The U.N. resolution and multilateral sanctions would be a major step 
forward. If we don't see rapid progress from the Sudanese Government, I 
urge the President to both introduce the U.N. resolution and to call 
for a vote. Let's put the countries of the world on notice that they 
must stand and be on the record on ending this genocide in Darfur.
  As I said, I understand President Bush is responding to a special 
request

[[Page S4661]]

from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who asked for some more time to 
negotiate. All I can say is, I hope the Secretary General's faith that 
real progress is being made is justified. At least on paper there has 
been a breakthrough in the last few days. The Sudanese Government has 
reportedly agreed to allowing 3,000 U.N. peacekeepers to deploy. But we 
have had promises like this in the past and no action.
  China, Sudan's biggest supporter and biggest customer for its oil, 
has also started taking mutant, limited, but proactive steps in recent 
weeks to convince the Sudanese to move forward on peacekeeping. China's 
Assistant Foreign Minister recently toured refugee camps full of people 
from Darfur who had fled their homes. That is not a typical stop on a 
Chinese Government tour, a positive sign that China is not blind to the 
human rights abuses going on in Sudan. China has reportedly played an 
important role recently in urging the Sudanese Government to move 
forward.
  At the same time, however, China continues to oppose sanctions even 
if Khartoum continues to obstruct peacekeeping. The Chinese Defense 
Minister recently announced that China is interested in developing 
military cooperation with Sudan, whatever that could possibly mean. As 
for Sudan, while Khartoum has said it will allow deployment of 3,000 
U.N. peacekeepers, a new U.N. report details how the Sudanese 
Government is flying arms of heavy military equipment into Darfur.
  This morning's New York Times has photographs of the Sudanese 
painting their airplanes to appear to be United Nations aircraft and 
African Union aircraft so that they can deceptively ship arms into this 
region that will be used to kill innocent people. That is the 
government we are dealing with in Khartoum. Sudan has promised to allow 
3,000 U.N. peacekeepers and their equipment into Darfur. If it keeps 
the promise this time, it would be a start, but what is needed, as the 
President said today at the Holocaust Museum, is the full 21,000 
combined U.N.-African Union force with the means and mandate to protect 
the people of Darfur. The people of Darfur have waited long enough for 
peace and security and the end of genocide. Now is the time to act.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am about to call up the managers' 
amendment the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania and I have 
worked on.
  So, Mr. President, I send to the desk, on behalf of myself and 
Senator Specter, an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is already a pending committee 
amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is currently 
pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is currently pending is a committee-
reported amendment to the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Would that be the Feinstein-Kyl amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the language on page 20, starting at 
line 22: ``Federal Judges For Courts Of Appeals.''
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The committee amendment was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 896

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe the managers' amendment is at the 
desk. I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself and Mr. 
     Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 896.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To make technical changes)

       On page 5, line 5, strike ``any other court'' and insert 
     ``the United States Tax Court''.
       On page 5, line 10, after ``otherwise provide'' insert ``, 
     when requested by the chief judge of the Tax Court,''.
       On page 5, line 13, strike ``person'' and insert 
     ``persons''.
       On page 5, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       (c) Reimbursement.--The United States Tax Court shall 
     reimburse the United States Marshals Service for protection 
     provided under the amendments made by this section.
       On page 7, line 13, strike ``Sec.  118.'' and insert 
     ``Sec.  119.''.
       On page 9, strike line 1 and all that follows through the 
     matter following line 4 and insert the following:
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``119. Protection of individuals performing certain official duties.''.

       On page 19, strike line 18 and insert the following:
       (b) Construction.--For purposes of construing and applying 
     chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, including any 
     adjustment of insurance rates by regulation or otherwise, the 
     following categories of judicial officers shall be deemed to 
     be judges of the United States as described under section 
     8701 of title 5, United States Code:
       (1) Bankruptcy judges appointed under section 151 of title 
     28, United States Code.
       (2) Magistrate judges appointed under section 631 of title 
     28, United States Code.
       (3) Territorial district court judges appointed under 
     section 24 of the Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 1424b), 
     section 1(b) of the Act of November 8, 1877 (48 U.S.C. 1821), 
     or section 24(a) of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin 
     Islands (48 U.S.C. 1614(a)).
       (4) Judges retired under section 377 of title 28, United 
     States Code.
       (5) Judges retired under section 373 of title 28, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by
       On page 20, line 6, strike ``magistrates'' and insert 
     ``magistrate judges''.
       On page 20, line 9, strike ``MAGISTRATES'' and insert 
     ``MAGISTRATE JUDGES''.
       On page 20, strike lines 17 through 22 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 505. FEDERAL JUDGES FOR COURTS OF APPEALS.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment, on behalf of myself and 
Senator Specter, irons out a few remaining technical and jurisdictional 
issues relating to our Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. We are 
offering a managers' amendment that contains a few technical fixes, 
including grammatical changes and proper references to ``magistrate 
judges.''
  This bipartisan amendment will make clear that additional protection 
provided to the Tax Court by the Marshals Service shall be reimbursed 
by the funds allocated to the Tax Court. We also clarify the 
construction of which officers qualify as ``judges'' so that all 
Federal judges are treated the same with regard to life insurance.
  Senator Lieberman raised an objection with regard to section 505, 
which provided for the reauthorization of the Ethics in Government Act. 
I understand that Chairman Lieberman is currently working to 
reauthorize that legislation, so Senator Specter and I have agreed to 
remove it from our court security bill.
  I note for my colleagues that no major policy changes relating to 
improving the security that our Federal judges receive appear in this 
managers' package. I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Specter, for working with me on this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment--
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand there is a concern on the 
other side of the aisle, and as the one who has the floor at this 
point, I withhold that request and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S4662]]

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 891

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 891 be called up for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 891.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should 
                    offset the cost of new spending)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--(1) the national debt 
     of the United States of America now exceeds 
     $8,500,000,000;000;
       (2) each United States citizen's share of this debt is 
     approximately $29,183;
       (3) every cent that the United States Government borrows 
     and adds to this debt is money stolen from future generations 
     of Americans and from important programs, including Social 
     Security and Medicare on which our senior citizens depend for 
     their retirement security;
       (4) the power of the purse belongs to Congress;
       (5) Congress authorizes and appropriates all Federal 
     discretionary spending;
       (6) for too long, Congress has simply borrowed more and 
     more money to pay for new spending, while Americans want 
     Congress to live within its means, using the same set of 
     common sense rules and restraints Americans face everyday; 
     because in the real world, families cannot follow Congress's 
     example and must make difficult decisions and set priorities 
     on how to spend their limited financial resources; and
       (7) it is irresponsible for Congress to authorize new 
     spending for programs that will result in borrowing from 
     Social Security, Medicare, foreign nations, or future 
     generations of Americans.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress has a moral obligation to offset the cost of 
     new government programs, initiatives, and authorizations.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It says: 
it is the sense of the Senate that we should not create new spending 
programs when we have to borrow money to pay for them; that, in fact, 
we ought to create priorities, that the priorities ought to be the same 
type of priorities that everybody in this country has to face every day 
with their own personal budget, that they cannot go out and use their 
credit card without having a consequence.
  This is a very simple amendment. I wish to read it thoroughly so 
everybody understands what the amendment says. It says the following:

       The Senate finds that--
       (1) the national debt of the United States of America now 
     exceeds $8,500,000,000,000;
       (2) each United States citizen's share of this debt--

from the oldest to the youngest--

       is approximately $29,183;
       (3) every [penny] that the United States Government borrows 
     and adds to this debt is money [that will be borrowed] from 
     future generations of Americans and from important programs, 
     including Social Security and Medicare on which our senior 
     citizens depend for their retirement security;

  It also states:

       (4) the power of the purse belongs to Congress;
       (5) Congress authorizes and appropriates all Federal 
     discretionary spending;
       (6) for too long, Congress has simply borrowed more and 
     more money to pay for new spending, while Americans want 
     Congress to live within its means, using the same set of 
     common sense rules and restraints [every American faces] 
     everyday; because in the real world, families cannot follow 
     Congress's example and must make difficult decisions and set 
     priorities on how to spend their limited financial resources. 
     . . .

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would this also include the hundreds of 
billions of dollars we have borrowed so far for the war in Iraq?
  Mr. COBURN. Absolutely. I agree with that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Would this mean we would not be able to continue to borrow 
money for the war in Iraq?
  Mr. COBURN. This is a sense of the Senate. I would be happy for us 
not to borrow money. We had $200 billion a year in waste, fraud, abuse, 
and duplication outlined by the Federal Financial Management 
Subcommittee last year. Appropriators refused to look at that, ways to 
fund it. Mr. President, $200 billion--we could spend $100 billion on 
the war and $100 billion to lower the deficit. I would be very happy to 
apply this to everything we do. Every American has to do exactly the 
same thing with their own budget every day.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I could continue for a moment, without 
the Senator losing his right to the floor. I share his concern about 
expenditures. I wish we were back in the days of President Clinton, 
where we built up a surplus and started paying down the Federal debt; 
other than what a Republican-controlled Congress voted for, which has 
tripled the national debt.
  Mr. COBURN. The Senator makes a great point. The realistic fact is, 
we decreased the Federal debt $2 billion under the entire Clinton 
administration. Mr. President, $2 billion. One year we had a true 
surplus--a true surplus. That was the extent of it. And since then, and 
before then, we have borrowed the future of our children away.
  To continue, this resolution states:

       (7) it is irresponsible for Congress to authorize new 
     spending for programs that will result in borrowing from 
     Social Security. . . .

  I say to Social Security recipients, we borrowed $140 billion, last 
year, from Social Security to pay for things we were not willing to 
either trim down, make more efficient or eliminate in duplicative 
programs.
  We also are borrowing from foreign governments. That is affecting our 
financial status. But most importantly, we are borrowing from future 
generations of Americans.
  The amendment states:

       (b) . . . It is the sense of the Senate that Congress has a 
     moral obligation to offset the cost of new government 
     programs, initiatives, and authorizations.

  It is very simple. A resolution has no impact of law. It says: We 
agree, here are the rules under which we ought to operate. It does not 
bind anybody. It says, if we are going to create new programs, we 
either ought to find a way where we do not borrow to pay for them or we 
ought to offset them by eliminating ineffective programs.
  In 2001, as the Senator rightly noted, the Federal debt per person in 
this country was $21,000. It has risen almost $10,000 since 2001. A lot 
of people are quick to dismiss that figure, say it does not matter, we 
only need to worry about the debt and the deficits as compared to the 
economic growth in the size of our economy. A better rule of thumb is 
how Government growth compares to the growth of wages and earnings. 
Last fiscal year alone, the real Federal deficit increased in excess of 
$300 billion--a debt our children and grandchildren will repay. So $7.2 
billion was spent each day, or $84,000 was spent per second--per 
second. If regular Americans must tighten their belts to live within 
their means, the Federal Government should do the same instead of 
authorizing new spending without offsetting similar spending.

  Last year's interest costs alone were 8 percent of the total Federal 
budget. In contrast, the average American spends about 5 percent of 
their income as a percentage of their interest costs. The Federal 
Government spent $226 billion on interest costs alone. According to the 
Government Accountability Office, by the year 2030, interest will 
consume 25 percent--25 percent--of the Federal debt.
  So why do I bring this resolution to the floor? I bring the 
resolution to the floor to make the point that when we authorize new 
programs, we ought to find the money to pay for them and we ought to 
reduce programs that aren't effective. We ought to look at the programs 
that aren't accomplishing what we want them to, we ought to eliminate 
duplicate programs where one works well and one doesn't work quite so 
well and put the money into the one that works well so we get good 
value for our dollars, and we ought to change the habits under which we 
work so we can all accomplish what we would like to see.
  I would like to see middle-income wages rise in this country at a 
rate faster than they rise for the wealthy

[[Page S4663]]

class. I would like to see opportunity enhanced in this country. I 
would like to see a balanced budget so we don't steal opportunity from 
our children and our grandchildren. I don't think most people disagree 
with that.
  The reason we are out here debating this is I had a simple request: 
Let's just find some deauthorization amendments so that when we bring 
this new and very needed bill to the floor--and I agree and I think 
everybody on the Judiciary Committee agrees this is a good bill; it is 
going to pass--shouldn't we make some hard choices, just like every 
family makes? Instead, we choose not to. We decide we will pass a new 
bill. We will add $40 million a year to the cost to run the Government, 
but we won't deauthorize anything that is out there that is not working 
effectively. We won't fix the improper payments that are going on in 
this country to the tune of about $40 billion--that is billion with a 
``b.'' That is a thousand times more in improper payments than this 
bill costs. We won't do the hard work that is necessary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield to the Senator. By the way, I enjoyed 
the Senator's speech on Darfur, and as the Senator from Illinois knows, 
I agree with him very much. I thank him for his efforts on the genocide 
that is now occurring in Darfur.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. He has been a stalwart 
in the effort for Darfur.
  I would like to read a sentence to the Senator from Oklahoma and ask 
him what it means. It is a sentence from the underlying bill, which is 
an authorization bill. It relates to section 105. Here is what it says:

       In addition to any other amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for the U.S. Marshals Service, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated for the U.S. Marshals Service 
     to protect the judiciary $20 million for each of the fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2011.

  Now I would like to ask the Senator this: If we pass this bill 
authorizing $20 million to be appropriated to the U.S. Marshals Service 
to protect judges and then do not appropriate the money for that 
purpose, how much money will come out of the Federal Treasury going to 
the U.S. Marshals pursuant to this bill?
  Mr. COBURN. None.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator another question.
  Mr. COBURN. I am happy to answer it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Isn't that what this is all about?
  Mr. COBURN. No, it is not.
  Mr. DURBIN. You were claiming a reauthorization----
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, here is what it is 
about. The Senator from Illinois is a great advocate for those who are 
less fortunate in this country. That is what this is about. It is about 
changing the habits of the Senate.
  I understand the appropriations process. I understand the 
authorization process. Changing the habits says we are not going to 
authorize new programs until we have done our homework on the programs 
that aren't effective. That is the whole purpose of this amendment.
  I understand the Senator's consternation with my desire. I understand 
that most people inside Washington disagree. But I also understand that 
most people outside of Washington say that if you increase spending--
authorized spending, not appropriated spending but authorized 
spending--$40 million and never look at what you can deauthorize, 
whenever we get to a surplus or when we get to a balanced budget, we 
are going to spend more money. We are not going to make the hard 
choices. That is exactly what happens. We can disagree with that but, 
in fact, that is how we got an $8.9 trillion deficit. That is how we 
ran a $300 billion-plus deficit this year. It is the process. It is the 
process where we have decided that authorization has minimal power to 
influence in this body and that appropriations has all power.

  My point in making us debate this resolution on this bill and 
bringing it up is to say: Let's start the process where we start 
looking, as our oath charges us to do, at what doesn't work. Let's 
bring a bill that authorizes something that is very good and bring a 
bill that deauthorizes something that might get funding even though it 
is not effective.
  I will give an example: the COPS Program. It is a very good program. 
It helps a lot of cities. Why shouldn't it be competitively bid? Why 
shouldn't the cities with the most need get the help with their police 
force rather than the cities whose Members put an earmark in for the 
COPS Program, and any money that doesn't go to true need comes back to 
the Federal Treasury? Why wouldn't we do that? Because that is hard 
work. Because we might alienate one group as we do what is best for 
everybody in America.
  I understand the resistance to my efforts in challenging the way we 
operate in the Senate, and I understand the opposition to my techniques 
and methods in trying to accomplish that. However, as the Senator from 
Illinois knows, if I am a champion for anything, I am a champion for 
making sure we don't waste one penny anywhere. The best way to do that 
is to start having good habits in how we arrange what we are going to 
spend.
  The fact is, it is very easy to find offsets in authorization because 
we have three times as much authorized as we actually spend. So the 
Senator's point is exactly true, but it doesn't direct us down to the 
problem. If we get in the habit of making the decision we are going to 
look at the programs that don't work, we are going to deauthorize the 
programs that don't work, guess what we will do. We eventually might 
get rid of the one $1 of every $5 on the discretionary side today that 
is either waste, fraud, abuse, or duplication--$1 in $5. No one in this 
body blows 20 percent of their personal budget on stuff that doesn't 
mean anything or have any return. Yet in the discretionary budget, 
everything except Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, that is 
exactly what we do. It is exactly what we do. So why would we not say: 
Let's change. Let's fulfill an obligation to two generations from us 
now. I know what I am doing today isn't going to have a great impact on 
the next appropriations bill or the next one after that or the one 
after that, but 5 years from now, it might have an impact.
  The point is, let's live like everybody else out there. Let's not 
take the credit card and not look at the things we really should be 
looking at. Let's do some extra work. Let's try to accomplish what is 
best for everybody in this country, no matter what their economic 
station in life, no matter what their background, no matter what their 
position is. They all have a limited budget. They have to make choices. 
They have to make choices, and they have to prioritize things. The 
Senate doesn't; they just authorize another bill and never deauthorize 
anything else.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I respect the Senator from Oklahoma. I 
respect his fiscal conservatism. I respect his belief that our budget 
deficit is a source of growing concern for all of us. He says we need 
to start with good habits. I believe we need to start with the right 
language. We need to understand what the Senator is asking us to 
consider.
  He started by saying that no family in America has the luxury the 
Federal Government has of spending more than they bring in year after 
year after year, which is what our deficit does at the Federal level. 
No argument there. Let me use another family example. My wife and I 
have raised three children. Occasionally, we have given them some 
choices. A father could say to his son: You have $200 coming up for 
your birthday. Here are the choices you can make: You can buy a new 
suit--it wouldn't be a bad idea if you are going to go out for an 
interview--or you can buy that bicycle you have had your eye on for a 
long time that you want to take to college or I know you want to buy an 
iPod. OK. Make a choice, but you only get $200. Make one of those 
choices. I authorize your birthday gift to be spent on those three 
things, but I will not appropriate--I will not give you the $200 for 
all three, only for one. Three choices are on the table; you only get 
to choose one.

[[Page S4664]]

  Authorization bills put choices on the table, and then the 
appropriations bills make a choice. It doesn't mean my son is going to 
get $600 at the end of the day; he only gets $200. He has to make a 
choice from the gifts I have authorized. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
arguing that giving my son a choice of three things means he is going 
to demand all three and get them. Wrong. It is a matter of discipline 
when it comes to the appropriations process. The authorization process 
is not the problem. We could authorize much more than we ultimately 
spend, and we do, but in the final reckoning, the budget resolution 
says you can only spend so much money. You can only spend $200 on your 
birthday, I say to my son, even though you are being given three 
authorized choices.

  So when the Senator offers us this sense of the Senate, it sounds an 
awful lot like pay-go, which is now the process we are following in the 
Senate which says: If you want to spend some money, you have to find a 
way to increase a tax or cut spending in other areas. It is pay as you 
go. But the Senator from Oklahoma applies it to authorizations. It is a 
different world. Confusing the two is not going to help us reach a 
balanced budget; confusing the two creates confusion. Authorization is 
not appropriation.
  Earmarks can be appropriations. I have seen them. I have done them. I 
have announced them in press releases. I am happy to do so to bring 
money back to my State as best I can for good reasons, and I stand by 
them and defend them. People challenge them. That is the nature of this 
business as I consider it.
  The bottom line is, if I am authorized to have three bridges in 
Illinois, authorized to have three bridges in Illinois and only have 
money for one bridge to be appropriated, I have to make a choice. The 
people in my State have to make a choice. Life is about choices. It is 
not about what I might choose; it is what I ultimately have to choose--
one bridge, one birthday gift. That is the appropriation. That is why 
this is so different.
  Ordinarily, this resolution, until it gets to its resolved sense-of-
the-Senate clause, is pretty easy to take. I might disagree with some 
of the rhetoric here and there, but when you end by arguing that an 
authorization is an expenditure of money, it is just not accurate. It 
doesn't state what happens here in Congress.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. COBURN. Under your premise, only bills that are authorized get 
funded, correct?
  Mr. DURBIN. But all bills that are authorized do not get 
appropriated.
  Mr. COBURN. Except you are wrong. Last year, $220 billion of 
unauthorized programs were appropriated.
  If I may--will the Senator yield to me? I am happy to yield back in a 
moment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Sure.
  Mr. COBURN. Let's carry your analogy a little further. What has 
really happened is you give your son $200, but the mandate is--you are 
going to spend $100 on a broken iPod or a used iPod, and you have $100 
to buy down towards a good one, but you mandate that you spend $100 on 
the bad one. That is the analogy. That is why we ought to deauthorize 
programs that aren't working. That is why we ought to oversight 
aggressively every area of the Federal Government.
  Let me take one other exception, and then I will be happy to yield 
back to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. Could I interrupt the Senator just to say this: This is 
getting painfully close to a debate, which rarely occurs on the floor 
of the Senate, so please proceed.
  Mr. COBURN. I love it. I love to debate the Senator from Illinois.
  I take a different tact, and the Senator knows that. I look at the 
oath I took when I came to the Senate. It didn't say ``Oklahoma'' in 
it; the Senator's didn't say ``Illinois.'' What the oath says is to 
defend the Constitution of the United States and do what is best for 
the country as a whole and in the long term.
  Now, the Senator--and I admire him greatly--admitted that he plays 
the game the way it is played. I am telling him that the American 
people are ready for the game to be played a different way--a totally 
different way. Part of that is looking at the authority under which we 
allow money to be spent and recognizing that if we are going to 
authorize something new, given the jam we are in, all you have to do is 
talk to David Walker and look at what is going to happen in the next 
two generations. Don't we have an obligation to look at the programs 
that are not authorized?
  Would the Senator answer this question: When was the last time he saw 
a program deauthorized in this body?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to respond. I think the Senator has asked a 
good question but not the right question. When we fail to appropriate 
money for an authorized program, we are saying there is a higher 
priority. We are saying that authorized program may not be as valid or 
as valuable today as when it was enacted, and we make the choice. The 
Senator referred to this, and I know he didn't mean to demean the 
process in saying that I am ``playing the game.'' I don't think I am 
``playing the game'' when I do the best I can to help the 12\1/2\ 
million people I represent. If the Senator ran into a problem--and 
occasionally Oklahoma has a challenge--I will be there to help him, 
too. That is the nature of it. We try to represent our States and also 
do what is good for the Nation.
  Secondly, if authorization is broken, as the Senator from Oklahoma 
says, the obvious answer is, either don't appropriate money for it, or 
when the appropriations bill comes to the floor, strike it and move the 
money to another program. You have the right to do that as a Senator. 
But the fact that the options or choices are out there doesn't mean 
that every one of them is going to be honored and appropriated.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, if I might, the 
thing that strikes me is the Senator is a wonderful debater, except 
when he says the appropriators appropriating money on an authorized 
program--that is great, except the American public needs to know that 
22 percent of what we appropriate has never been authorized. Never.
  So the fact is, we say authorization means something, but it means 
nothing as far as the appropriations process goes. The real point of 
this debate is how do we grab hold of this problem, this behemoth of a 
problem that will face our children and grandchildren in the next 20 to 
25 years, and do it in a way that will give us the greatest opportunity 
for them?
  My idea--and obviously many people disagree with it--is I think we 
ought to start looking at every program. We ought to ask a couple of 
questions: Can we measure its effectiveness? Is there a metric on it 
that says this program is supposed to do this? Is there a metric there 
so we can measure it? I am of the mind to say that if you cannot 
measure something, you cannot manage it. Ninety percent of the programs 
have no metric in the Federal Government, so we don't know if they are 
working.
  No. 2, is it a program that is still needed? We don't ever look at 
the authorizing level. The Senator would have us defer everything to 
appropriations, and that is what we actually do because 20 percent of 
what we appropriate is not authorized and everything we authorize isn't 
appropriated. So, obviously, authorizations are meaningless. So what we 
should do is eliminate authorizing committees and just have 
appropriations committees and we will all be on appropriations 
committees.
  Third, we should ask, is this still a legitimate function of the 
Federal Government? When we ran a $300 billion-plus true deficit last 
year and every State, save one, had big surpluses, should we not ask 
the question: If we are doing things that really are not the Federal 
Government's role to do, and we have a deficit and the States have a 
surplus, should we not let them do it without our fingers taking 15 
percent of the money as we send it back?
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield, I will make a constructive 
suggestion, not to make a debate point or anything else, but to serve 
his purposes. Can I suggest that instead of a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution, the Senator from Oklahoma, when an authorization bill comes 
along, offer a sunset provision to be added to it to say that at a 
certain period of time this authorization ends and has to be

[[Page S4665]]

reauthorized? Would that not serve his purpose?
  Mr. COBURN. As a matter of fact, I did just that on the last 9/11 
bill, and the Senator from Illinois voted against it. I voted to sunset 
it. I actually offered the amendment that said we should sunset it and 
look at it in 5 years, and the Senator from Illinois disagreed. He 
thought, no, we should not do that. This Senator must admit that he 
does have a constructive suggestion. I just wish he had voted that way 
when we had the amendment up.
  Mr. DURBIN. I was reluctant to do this, but I am going to refer to a 
couple of votes of the Senator from Oklahoma. His amendment was to 
sunset the entire Department of Homeland Security. Also, on two 
separate occasions he voted against pay-as-you-go requiring 50 votes. 
Here are two different rollcalls where the Senator's vote would have 
made the difference.

  Mr. COBURN. My amendment did not sunset the whole Department of 
Homeland Security. It was the grants process.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is what keeps our country safe.
  Mr. COBURN. It is made up of how we dole money out to the States 
rather than looking at the best interests of the country and looking at 
the risk base for national security and homeland security. I am 
basically for a true pay-go that says the options are two. One option 
said the only option is, if we won't cut spending, we will raise taxes. 
That is a pay-more, not a pay-go. It is pay more.
  I am proud of those votes. I had consternation over it because I want 
to try to hold to those things. But the pay-go as outlined two times in 
the language was a vote for pay-more.
  Will the Senator agree with me that there is waste, fraud, and abuse 
in the duplication of the Federal Government.
  Mr. DURBIN. Absolutely.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator agree that since we had a $300 billion-
plus deficit last year--$200 billion-plus if we weren't in the war in 
Iraq--if we took that off the table, would it not make sense for us to 
try to get rid of the waste, fraud, duplication, and abuse?
  Mr. DURBIN. Of course. But I include the war in Iraq----
  Mr. COBURN. It doesn't include the war. Let me finish my point.
  Mr. DURBIN. I said I do include the war in Iraq.
  Mr. COBURN. It was in there, but say we were not in the war and we 
were still down to $200 billion--let's take that off the table. Say we 
have a $200 billion deficit, and we can demonstrate from our 
subcommittee hearings $200 billion a year in waste, fraud, and abuse. 
Yet we did nothing about it. We did nothing.
  I have enjoyed my debate with the Senator from Illinois. I ask that 
we vote on the question at hand. I thank him for his kindness.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Specter may have a 
comment he wants to make. I respect the Senator's view on the budget, 
though we disagree. We both understand the seriousness of the deficit. 
I don't think authorizations are the problem. For that reason, I will 
vote against this amendment. When we vote on a pay-go amendment, I hope 
you can join us.
  Mr. COBURN. As long as it is not a pay-more amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Frankly, it has to include taxes instead of spending.
  I will yield the floor to the Senator from Pennsylvania, if he is 
prepared to speak. If not, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have an amendment in my hand by Senator 
John Ensign. I will send it to the desk. I ask unanimous consent to set 
aside the pending amendment and to have this called up.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I may, we are about to 
have a vote in connection with the amendment of the Senator from 
Oklahoma. If we are going to start talking about amendments for a 
couple of hours and bring up another one, we are not going to get 
anywhere on the bill for court security, which has been passed twice by 
this body. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, a great deal of what the Senator from 
Oklahoma has offered, I agree with; that is, that we ought to live 
within our means as a society. I have consistently supported 
constitutional amendments for balanced budgets, to require the Congress 
to live within its means, like States, cities, and we personally must 
live within our means. I have supported the line-item veto. I think the 
transparency for awards, also known as earmarks, will be an improvement 
of the current system.
  I agree with what the Senator from Oklahoma has said about the 
problems created by the national debt and by the deficit. But the 
sense-of-the-Senate conclusion, I think, goes further than we can, 
realistically. The last paragraph says:

       It is the sense of the Senate that Congress has a moral 
     obligation to offset the cost of new government programs, 
     initiatives, and authorizations.

  When you talk about living within our means and a balanced budget, in 
the line-item veto, I would agree with that; but when you talk about 
offsetting the authorizations, that goes to a point that I think goes 
too far because the legislative process has two steps. One step is the 
authorization and the second step is the appropriation.
  It is common practice to have authorizations that will be 
substantially beyond what an appropriation will be. The real decisive 
factor is what money is appropriated, what money is spent, not what 
moneys can be authorized. But in structuring programs and 
authorizations, it is the common practice to put a figure in that is 
larger than may be used, but it is there for purposes of contingency, 
if more should be used, so that the real critical factor is the 
appropriations process.
  I cannot agree with what the Senator from Oklahoma seeks to 
accomplish on tying the hands of the authorizers because of the 
established practice that I think is appropriate. For that reason, I 
regrettably cannot support what my colleague has offered, although I 
think the underlying purpose is very valid.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if this was our Department of Justice 
authorization bill, these kinds of amendments could certainly be 
considered.
  We are talking about a court security bill which has passed this body 
twice, which is urgently needed. I am trying to keep extraneous matters 
off it and have them offered on legislation where it is more 
appropriate.


                           Amendment No. 896

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that the managers' package be considered and 
agreed to, and we revert to the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 896) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 891

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my understanding is the managers' package 
has been agreed to and we are back on the Coburn amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 896 is agreed to, and the Coburn 
amendment is pending.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I don't want to surprise my colleague 
from Oklahoma, I will in a moment move to table his amendment. Again, 
if this was a DOJ authorization bill--and I have presented and passed 
in this body DOJ authorization bills before--then if he wanted to bring 
the amendment up, we could vote it up or down. This is a different 
bill. We want it to be a clean bill.
  Therefore, Madam President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.

[[Page S4666]]

  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Martinez
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Johnson
     Lott
     McCain
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak in 
morning business.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Iowa, 
my dear friend, I have to file a cloture motion. It will take me just a 
minute.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Surely.


                             cloture motion

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     107, S. 378, the Court Security Improvement bill.
         Robert Menendez, Sherrod Brown, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, 
           Ron Wyden, Debbie Stabenow, Patrick Leahy, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Ted Kennedy, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, Frank 
           Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, Robert P. 
           Casey, Patty Murray, Jay Rockefeller.

                          ____________________