[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 63 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4729-S4744]
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 resume 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.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we continue to debate and consider 
the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. It should not be a struggle 
to enact this broadly supported consensus legislation. We made some 
progress yesterday but failed to get to final passage of this important 
legislation. I hope we can get there later today.
  I would like to thank the majority leader for his support and 
leadership on this bill. Senator Reid knows all too well about the need 
for greater court security since the last courthouse tragedy occurred 
in Nevada. Nobody has been a stronger supporter of this legislation. He 
helped us pass similar protections twice last year. It is no surprise 
to me that yesterday he met with the head of the U.S. Marshals Service. 
Sadly, they reported a 17 percent increase in attacks this year. We 
cannot delay our response any further in the face of this trend.
  Senator Durbin, our assistant majority leader, has been consistently 
dedicated to getting this legislation passed. The tragic murder of 
Judge Lefkow's husband and mother in her home State of Illinois serves 
as a terrible reminder of why we need this legislation. Senator Durbin 
has worked tirelessly to prevent any further tragedies from befalling 
our Federal judges.
  As I have noted before, this legislation has broad bipartisan 
support. Yesterday Senator Cornyn gave a powerful statement in support 
of this legislation. Senator Cornyn is a former member of his State's 
judiciary. I urge Members to consider his views and support for these 
important provisions providing for increased security. Even the White 
House has issued a supportive Statement of Administration Policy.
  Yesterday a number of amendments were filed, but none of them was 
relevant to the important purpose of court security. There will be 
other opportunities to consider worthwhile amendments. I look forward 
to working with Senator Coburn on Department of Justice reauthorization 
later this year.
  We made some progress yesterday. The Senate adopted the Kyl-Feinstein 
amendment that was adopted in committee. I thank Senator Specter for 
working with me on an important managers' amendment. That amendment 
made several technical fixes and clarified our treatment and protection 
of magistrate judges and the Tax Court judges.
  Last night after significant debate we had a vote on an amendment 
offered by Senator Coburn. Regretfully, it took from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 
p.m. for the Senator from Oklahoma to be ready to offer his amendment. 
Once offered we dealt with it promptly.
  I would like to thank Senator Whitehouse for helping me manage this 
bill yesterday. His eloquent words in support of this legislation were 
much appreciated.
  I thank Senators Klobuchar and Brown for helping me manage this 
legislation today during the Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing 
with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
  I hope that today we can finish our work on this important 
legislation.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Nevada has an 
amendment he wishes to offer.


                           Amendment No. 897.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 897.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 897.

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

  (Purpose: To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the 
 appointment of additional Federal circuit judges, to divide the Ninth 
 Judicial Circuit of the United States into 2 circuits, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                     TITLE VI: NINTH CIRCUIT SPLIT

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``The Circuit Court of 
     Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Former ninth circuit.--The term ``former ninth 
     circuit'' means the ninth judicial circuit of the United 
     States as in existence on the day before the effective date 
     of this title.
       (2) New ninth circuit.--The term ``new ninth circuit'' 
     means the ninth judicial circuit of the United States 
     established by the amendment made by section 603(2)(A).
       (3) Twelfth circuit.--The term ``twelfth circuit'' means 
     the twelfth judicial circuit of the United States established 
     by the amendment made by section 603(2)(B).

     SEC. 603. NUMBER AND COMPOSITION OF CIRCUITS.

       Section 41 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding the table, by striking 
     ``thirteen'' and inserting ``fourteen''; and
       (2) in the table--
       (A) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and 
     inserting the following:

California, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands.''..................

       and

[[Page S4730]]

       (B) by inserting after the item relating to the eleventh 
     circuit the following:

Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington.''.........

     SEC. 604. JUDGESHIPS.

       (a) New Judgeships.--The President shall appoint, by and 
     with the advice and consent of the Senate, 5 additional 
     circuit judges for the new ninth circuit court of appeals, 
     whose official duty station shall be in California.
       (b) Temporary Judgeships.--
       (1) Appointment of judges.--The President shall appoint, by 
     and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 2 additional 
     circuit judges for the former ninth circuit court of appeals, 
     whose official duty stations shall be in California.
       (2) Effect of vacancies.--The first 2 vacancies occurring 
     on the new ninth circuit court of appeals 10 years or more 
     after judges are first confirmed to fill both temporary 
     circuit judgeships created by this subsection shall not be 
     filled.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 605. NUMBER OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

       The table contained in section 44(a) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and 
     inserting the following:

``Ninth........................................................20''....

     and
       (2) by inserting after the item relating to the eleventh 
     circuit the following:

``Twelfth.....................................................14''.....

     SEC. 606. PLACES OF CIRCUIT COURT.

       The table contained in section 48(a) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and 
     inserting the following:

Honolulu, Pasadena, San Francisco.''...................................

       and
       (2) by inserting after the item relating to the eleventh 
     circuit the following:

Las Vegas, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle.''...............................

     SEC. 607. LOCATION OF TWELFTH CIRCUIT HEADQUARTERS.

       The offices of the Circuit Executive of the Twelfth Circuit 
     and the Clerk of the Court of the Twelfth Circuit shall be 
     located in Phoenix, Arizona.

     SEC. 608. ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

       Each circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who is in 
     regular active service and whose official duty station on the 
     day before the effective date of this title--
       (1) is in California, Guam, Hawaii, or the Northern Mariana 
     Islands shall be a circuit judge of the new ninth circuit as 
     of such effective date; and
       (2) is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 
     or Washington shall be a circuit judge of the twelfth circuit 
     as of such effective date.

     SEC. 609. ELECTION OF ASSIGNMENT BY SENIOR JUDGES.

       Each judge who is a senior circuit judge of the former 
     ninth circuit on the day before the effective date of this 
     title may elect to be assigned to the new ninth circuit or 
     the twelfth circuit as of such effective date and shall 
     notify the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts of such election.

     SEC. 610. SENIORITY OF JUDGES.

       The seniority of each judge--
       (1) who is assigned under section 608, or
       (2) who elects to be assigned under section 609,

     shall run from the date of commission of such judge as a 
     judge of the former ninth circuit.

     SEC. 611. APPLICATION TO CASES.

       The following apply to any case in which, on the day before 
     the effective date of this title, an appeal or other 
     proceeding has been filed with the former ninth circuit:
       (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), if the matter has 
     been submitted for decision, further proceedings with respect 
     to the matter shall be had in the same manner and with the 
     same effect as if this title had not been enacted.
       (2) If the matter has not been submitted for decision, the 
     appeal or proceeding, together with the original papers, 
     printed records, and record entries duly certified, shall, by 
     appropriate orders, be transferred to the court to which the 
     matter would have been submitted had this title been in full 
     force and effect at the time such appeal was taken or other 
     proceeding commenced, and further proceedings with respect to 
     the case shall be had in the same manner and with the same 
     effect as if the appeal or other proceeding had been filed in 
     such court.
       (3) If a petition for rehearing en banc is pending on or 
     after the effective date of this title, the petition shall be 
     considered by the court of appeals to which it would have 
     been submitted had this title been in full force and effect 
     at the time that the appeal or other proceeding was filed 
     with the court of appeals.

     SEC. 612. TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES AMONG 
                   CIRCUITS.

       Section 291 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) The chief judge of the Ninth Circuit may, in the 
     public interest and upon request by the chief judge of the 
     Twelfth Circuit, designate and assign temporarily any circuit 
     judge of the Ninth Circuit to act as circuit judge in the 
     Twelfth Circuit.
       ``(d) The chief judge of the Twelfth Circuit may, in the 
     public interest and upon request by the chief judge of the 
     Ninth Circuit, designate and assign temporarily any circuit 
     judge of the Twelfth Circuit to act as circuit judge in the 
     Ninth Circuit.''.

     SEC. 613. TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF DISTRICT JUDGES AMONG 
                   CIRCUITS.

       Section 292 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) The chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the Ninth Circuit may in the public interest--
       ``(1) upon request by the chief judge of the Twelfth 
     Circuit, designate and assign 1 or more district judges 
     within the Ninth Circuit to sit upon the Court of Appeals of 
     the Twelfth Circuit, or a division thereof, whenever the 
     business of that court so requires; and
       ``(2) designate and assign temporarily any district judge 
     within the Ninth Circuit to hold a district court in any 
     district within the Twelfth Circuit.
       ``(g) The chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the Twelfth Circuit may in the public interest--
       ``(1) upon request by the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, 
     designate and assign 1 or more district judges within the 
     Twelfth Circuit to sit upon the Court of Appeals of the Ninth 
     Circuit, or a division thereof, whenever the business of that 
     court so requires; and
       ``(2) designate and assign temporarily any district judge 
     within the Twelfth Circuit to hold a district court in any 
     district within the Ninth Circuit.
       ``(h) Any designations or assignments under subsection (f) 
     or (g) shall be in conformity with the rules or orders of the 
     court of appeals of, or the district within, as applicable, 
     the circuit to which the judge is designated or assigned.''.

     SEC. 614. ADMINISTRATION.

       The court of appeals for the ninth circuit as constituted 
     on the day before the effective date of this title may take 
     such administrative action as may be required to carry out 
     this title and the amendments made by this title. Such court 
     shall cease to exist for administrative purposes 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 615. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this title, including funds for 
     additional court facilities.

     SEC. 616. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as provided in section 604(c), this title and the 
     amendments made by this title shall take effect 12 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, we are debating a bill about court 
security. The court security bill is about the administration of 
justice. Some would argue that the amendment I have offered, while 
relating to the courts, does not deal with court security. Both the 
underlying bill and my amendment deal with the administration of 
justice. There are provisions in the bill that are not strictly dealing 
with court security, and I believe this is an appropriate place to talk 
about this amendment and an appropriate time for the Senate to vote on 
my amendment. It is something we have been working on for a few years.
  My amendment recognizes that the ninth circuit, by far being the 
largest circuit in the United States, is too large, the administration 
of justice is too slow, and that the ninth circuit needs to be broken 
up at this point. It needs to be split up so the people, such as the 
people who live in the State of Nevada, can receive justice in a way 
that is fair and that is also expeditious.
  In the past, the United States has gotten to a point with other 
circuits where we have decided that they are too large and need to be 
split. Some have argued that splitting up the ninth circuit is for 
ideological reasons, but that is not why I have offered this amendment. 
Many who used to be opposed to splitting up the ninth circuit 5 or 10 
years ago now understand that for the sake of the administration of 
justice, the ninth circuit needs to be split up. It is by far and away 
the largest circuit in the United States.
  We have had testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee, and many 
articles have been written, on why so many of the ninth circuit 
decisions are overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  The Ninth Circuit, far and away, has more of its decisions overturned 
by the Supreme Court than any other circuit. Well, Mr. President, we 
had testimony that one of the reasons a lot of people believe that to 
be the case is not that the jurists on the Ninth Circuit may be less 
competent than those in other circuits, but that is because of the 
overwhelming caseload, the circuit doesn't have the time to consider 
the cases that other circuits do but the use of the en-banc panel, 
instead of the full circuit, contributes to this problem.

[[Page S4731]]

  Mr. President, 20 percent of the country is in the Ninth Circuit. It 
is laden with immigration cases. It has too many cases per judge and, 
because of that, too many of the cases that need to be heard in a 
timely fashion are delayed. What our bill simply would do is to divide 
the Ninth Circuit up in a very fair manner. We have put this through 
judges and through studies and over the years we have modified it on 
exactly how to break it up. If people disagree with how we are deciding 
to break it up, we can talk about that. But the bottom line is that it 
is too large of a circuit, and the Ninth Circuit needs to be split up.
  I think all but one of the judges in the State of Nevada--by the way, 
almost all these same judges used to be against splitting up the Ninth 
Circuit. Today, nearly all of them have come out in favor of splitting 
up the Ninth Circuit. The reason for that is we live in the fastest 
growing area in the country. Nevada, in 18 out of the last 19 years, is 
the fastest growing State. The other States in the Ninth Circuit, 
including Arizona, California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, all of these 
States have booming populations. While we are the largest circuit in 
the United States, it is going to get increasingly worse in the future, 
as far as the size of the population, the number of cases per judge, 
while overwhelming now, it is only going to get worse in the future.
  I believe this is an amendment that should be discussed as a separate 
bill on the floor. But we all know most bills cannot get time on the 
Senate floor. So you have to take the opportunity to offer amendments 
wherever you can. We have been trying to get this bill acted on for 
years and years and years. We now have a vehicle, dealing with the 
courts, where it is appropriate to offer this amendment. So that is why 
I am offering this amendment today.
  Mr. President, again, amendment No. 897 would split the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals. Because my home State of Nevada is under the 
jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, I have taken particular interest in 
how the Ninth Circuit functions. As a Senator from Nevada, I represent 
people who are on both sides of this issue. I have heard arguments for, 
and against, splitting the Ninth Circuit but, having listened to the 
debate, have concluded that it is time for Congress to split the Ninth 
Circuit.
  The Ninth Circuit really has become too large to function as 
efficiently as it should. The population of the States in the Ninth 
Circuit is growing too fast for the circuit to manage its caseload. 
Cases working their way through the Ninth Circuit take far too long to 
come to resolution. The circuit is becoming increasingly dependent on 
visiting judges, who are not as familiar with circuit precedent, to 
manage its caseload. The reversal rate of cases heard by the Supreme 
Court which on appeal from the Ninth Circuit is much higher than the 
average of all Federal circuits. These problems require some form of 
action by Congress and, having studied the issue, simply adding more 
judges is not the solution.
  Last year, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the issue of 
splitting the Ninth Circuit. As several Federal judges who were 
witnesses testified, adding more judges, in a circuit so geographically 
large, is not going to adequately address the need for collegiality 
among judges.
  Mr. President, my primary motivation is to ensure that my 
constituents, the people of Nevada, have equal access to justice. Equal 
access to justice requires not only fair, but also prompt, resolution 
of a case. From my perspective, the current backlog in cases and the 
fact that the resolution of appeals takes far longer in the Ninth 
Circuit than any other circuit demonstrates that Nevadans are not 
guaranteed the promise that their claims will be heard with the same 
timeliness as persons living in other circuits. The adage of ``justice 
delayed is justice denied'' is appropriate with respect to the Ninth 
Circuit delays.
  I believe we should consider the cost that unreasonable delay causes 
to the parties in a case. The lawyers and the judges live in this 
system. To these people, delays are not only reasonable but they are 
expected. A delay to someone who is part of the legal community is just 
the way things are done. But that is not the case for litigants. Ask 
any litigant whose case is waiting for a hearing on appeal. They take 
being sued personally and would tell you that their lives are on hold. 
They may fear they will lose their business, or their job, or their 
livelihood. It really does not matter whether the case involves 
business litigation, an immigration appeal, or a criminal matter.
  If you talk to the parties to a case, they will tell you stories of 
the economic, social, and psychological toll extended litigation has on 
them and their families. That is why I am concerned about delays in the 
process.
  That is also why I believe that some groups have endorsed my bill. 
For example, the Western States Sheriff's Association, which includes 
Nevada, has endorsed splitting the Ninth Circuit. I believe that the 
Association understands that America's law enforcement agencies have 
been devoting scarce budget resources to monitoring and dealing with 
criminal appeals that would otherwise be better devoted to protecting 
America's families if only appeals cases were resolved sooner rather 
than later.
  I believe that it is not only the duty of Congress but also our 
obligation to ensure that the Judicial branch is operating efficiently. 
That is why we are considering the current legislation, the court 
security bill, because we want to ensure that judicial branch operates 
efficiently. And we know that it cannot, if those who work in the 
system--our judges and our court officers--do not feel safe. That is 
also why my amendment is so important.
  I do not believe that splitting the Ninth Circuit would infringe on 
the ``independence of the judiciary'' as some might suggest. The 
Constitution provides Congress with the power to ``constitute'' or 
establish ``tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court,'' and also gives 
Congress the power to ``ordain and establish'' the lower Federal 
courts. Acting in accordance with the Constitution, Congress has used 
its authority to establish the Federal appeals courts and the Federal 
district courts, as well as other Federal courts. Congress has the 
ability to create courts of special jurisdiction, such as military 
courts, bankruptcy courts, and tax courts, and to limit the appeals 
jurisdiction of all Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the 
United States. The Constitution clearly provides that the people, 
acting through their respective Congressional representatives, can 
enact legislation to split the Ninth Circuit. The prerogative of 
Congress to enact legislation to split the Ninth Circuit is consistent 
with the role of Congress established by the Constitution. The idea of 
splitting the Ninth Circuit is a proper action for Congress to take.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would hope that Members of the Senate could 
agree that, regardless of where each of us may be on this issue, we 
could engage in an honest discussion and avoid attacking each other's 
motives. I have read with great interest the statements of people on 
the other side of this issue suggesting that split supporters, like 
myself, are only ``politically motivated'' or that supporters of a 
split are ``trying to punish'' the Ninth Circuit because of the 
perception of the circuit's ideology. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. I am sure the people who do not favor a split have likewise had 
similar attacks directed at them. We should not condone that rhetoric 
or impugn each others motives. I do not believe that it is in the 
Senate's, or the Nation's, best interest to attack someone else's 
motives. I have met with people on both sides of this issue and respect 
their views.
  Let me conclude by saying this. The saying is that justice delayed is 
justice denied. In the Ninth Circuit that is what happens ever single 
day. Nevadans experience justice delayed too often. We are putting more 
and more of a burden on our Federal courts by the actions of the 
Senate. We need to now take the responsibility to make sure our various 
circuits around the country are not even more overburdened simply 
because of population growth. That is what has happened, and will 
continue to happen, in the Ninth Circuit. We have added a judge here 
and there. But the overall size of the Ninth Circuit, even if you add 
more judges, would not take care of the problems we are now 
experiencing. Some have argued that adding more judges would fix the 
problem, but it still would not

[[Page S4732]]

allow the full Ninth Circuit to hear many of the most difficult, 
challenging cases. The judges of the ninth are not able to work 
together as a full circuit and collaborate on some of the most 
difficult, challenging judicial cases.
  That is why it is better to split up this circuit, so that more 
thoughtful decisions can be made in the administration of justice.
  With that, I will yield the floor and ask my colleagues to support 
this very important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from North Dakota 
is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, April 22 marks the beginning of National 
Crime Victims' Rights Week, an annual commemoration that has been 
observed since the early 1980s to honor crime victims and call 
attention to their plight.
  We have an opportunity to provide full justice to many victims of 
federal crime by passing legislation that will help federal criminal 
justice officials more fully recover court-order restitution that is 
owed to innocent crime victims. By ensuring victims receive the 
restitution they are entitled to, our proposal truly reflects the theme 
of this year's Crime Victims' Rights Week--Victim's Rights: Every 
Victim, Every Time.
  I intend to offer an amendment with Senator Grassley today that would 
improve the collection of federal criminal debt. Our amendment is being 
sent over to the floor at this point. I will describe it and the reason 
for offering it.
  The amendment will be one in the form of a bill, S. 973, which I 
authored with my colleague, Senator Grassley. We introduced it with 
Senators Durbin and Collins. It is called the Restitution for Victims 
Of Crime Act. This piece of legislation will give Justice Department 
officials the tools they say are needed to help them do a better job of 
collecting court-ordered Federal restitution and fines.
  In our court system in this country, there are, in many cases, fines 
that are levied against defendants who are found guilty of a crime. 
They are adjudged to be guilty and, therefore, are levied a fine by the 
court. In many cases, they are required to make restitution through 
orders of the court system. For some long while, I have been working on 
this issue because I have discovered that in the Federal court system, 
Justice Department data shows that the amount of uncollected criminal 
debt--that is, fines and restitution--is growing out of control. 
Believe it or not, the uncollected Federal criminal debt is nearly $46 
billion. Think of that. It is almost $46 billion. These are fines that 
have been levied in our Federal court system against defendants 
adjudged to have been guilty. Restitution orders have been made that 
require someone to make financial restitution; yet some $46 billion is 
the amount of criminal debt that is unpaid. It is spiraling upward. It 
was $41 billion just a year ago. When I first called attention to this 
problem, it was well less than half of that. Yet very little has been 
done.
  In my State of North Dakota, the Federal courts have about $18.7 
million of uncollected criminal debt. That is up some $4 million from 
the preceding year. In my judgment, crime victims should not have to 
worry if those in charge of collecting the restitution on their behalf 
are making every effort to do so. We would expect that to be happening. 
Yet it is not. In some cases, it is because the tools don't exist. In 
some cases, it is because collecting the criminal debt has become kind 
of the backwater of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
  At my request, GAO reviewed five white-collar financial fraud cases. 
What they have found is that certain offenders, those judged guilty, 
had taken expensive trips abroad, traveled overseas; had fraudulently 
obtained millions of dollars in assets and converted those assets to 
personal use. GAO also found offenders who had established businesses 
for their children; held homes and lived in homes worth millions of 
dollars that were located in upscale neighborhoods. So here we have a 
circumstance where we have people who have been judged guilty of 
certain things by the Federal court system. They have been told you 
have to pay a fine or you have to pay restitution. Yet despite the fact 
that they have not made restitution or paid their fine, according to 
the GAO evaluation at my request, some of them have decided we are not 
going to pay those things, we are going to take a trip overseas, live 
in multimillion dollar houses, we are going to transfer a business to 
the children so federal justice officials cannot get at it.
  All of this is going on at a time when victims are waiting for 
restitution that has been ordered by the court. The proposal that 
Senator Grassley and I have authored is a proposal based on a set of 
recommendations, some from the Justice Department, some from the task 
force on improving the collection of criminal debt. Justice Department 
officials believe the changes we suggest will remove many of the 
current impediments to better debt collection.
  Our legislation offers the tools that we think are necessary, having 
worked with Justice officials and others and victims' rights 
organizations, to deal with these issues. Justice Department officials 
describe, for example, a circumstance where they were prevented by a 
court from accessing $400,000 in a criminal offender's 401(k) plan to 
pay a $4 million restitution debt to a victim. Let me say that again. 
This is an offender who was judged to be guilty and who had $400,000 in 
a 401(k) plan. He has been ordered to pay a $4 million restitution debt 
to a victim. The court said: No, you cannot take the $400,000 in the 
401(k) plan because the defendant was complying with a $250 minimum 
monthly payment plan, and that precluded any other enforcement actions. 
So he is sitting there with nearly half a million dollars in liquid 
assets, and the victim is sitting over here having been defrauded. The 
court said you must pay restitution, and this person with nearly half a 
million dollars in assets is paying $250 a month, and the court says 
that is it, you cannot get the 401(k) funds from the victim. That is 
not fair. Our proposal would remove impediments like this in the 
future.
  This legislation will address another major problem identified by the 
GAO for officials in charge of criminal debt collection. Many years can 
pass between the date a crime occurs and the date that a court will 
order restitution. That gives criminal defendants an ample opportunity 
to hide their ill-gotten gains. This bill sets up preconviction 
procedures for preserving assets for victims' restitution. We set up 
those preconviction circumstances--no, not to take the assets but at 
least be sure they are going to be preserved in the event they are 
needed for restitution.
  These tools will ensure financial assets that are traceable to a 
crime are going to be available when a court imposes a final 
restitution order on behalf of a victim. These tools are similar to 
those already used in some states and by Federal officials in certain 
asset forfeiture cases. The Restitution for Victims Of Crime Act that I 
have introduced in the Senate as S. 973, with Senator Grassley and 
others, has been endorsed by a number of organizations that are 
concerned about the well-being of crime victims and the rights of 
victims to receive the restitution ordered by federal courts: National 
Center for Victims of Crime, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Parents of 
Murdered Children, Justice Solutions, and many others.
  The U.S. attorney in North Dakota has said this legislation 
``represents important progress toward ensuring that victims of crime 
are one step closer to being made whole.''
  I have mentioned S. 973, and that is what I intend to offer as an 
amendment to the court security bill. I recognize the legislation 
itself doesn't deal with the narrower issue of the security of the 
courts, but it certainly deals with the functioning of the courts and 
the ability of a court to decide they are going to levy a fine or 
impose a restitution order on a person judged guilty of a crime and 
then be able to feel, at some point, they are going to be able to make 
that happen.
  I mentioned earlier U.S. Attorney's Offices, as most of us know, are 
about investigating and prosecuting. They are involved when given 
investigation capability or given the results of investigations. If 
they believe a criminal act has occurred, they are involved in 
preparing to go to court to prosecute criminal actions.

  They have also been given the responsibility to collect fines and 
restitutions. But the fact is, many U.S.

[[Page S4733]]

attorneys will admit they have a U.S. Attorney's Office that, by and 
large, in the front of that office is engaged in prosecuting 
wrongdoing, and in the back of that office, the collection of fines and 
restitutions is not a high priority and, frankly, is difficult for many 
of them.
  I don't come here with harsh criticism in those circumstances. But I 
do say we should not stand for it, the Justice Department should not 
stand for it, and certainly victims should not stand for a circumstance 
where some $46 billion in court-ordered fines and restitution remains 
uncollected, while at least some are taking trips to London and have 
$400,000 in 401(k) accounts, are hiding their assets by transferring 
businesses to children, living in multimillion-dollar homes and 
deciding they won't pay the fines, they won't pay the restitution, and 
nothing much is going to happen to them because we are not very 
aggressive on behalf of victims or on behalf of this country in getting 
those fines and restitutions paid.
  That is not the right course for this country. I plan offer the 
amendment shortly to address this problem. I am checking with Senator 
Grassley for his cosponsorship. As I indicated, he was the primary 
cosponsor when we introduced the legislation earlier this year.
  I hope that perhaps we can consider this legislation as an amendment 
that would be added to the court security bill.
  Regarding the court security bill, I am pleased this bill is before 
the Senate. It is rather strange we had to have a recorded vote on 
whether we would have a motion to proceed to go to a court security 
bill, but I guess that is the strange, Byzantine circumstances of 
legislative activities these days in the Senate.
  Now that it is before the Senate, this is important business, and we 
should proceed to consider amendments and then pass this legislation 
and move to the other issues that are before us.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                           Contracting Abuses

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are considering the court security 
bill. At the moment, there is no one who wishes to speak on that 
legislation. I wish to speak about the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
which is now holding a hearing. I just finished testifying before the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. I wish to talk about that testimony.
  The Armed Services Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Carl 
Levin, is holding a hearing this morning on contracting abuses; that 
is, contracting abuses in Iraq especially under what is called the 
LOGCAP contract.
  I testified that I chaired in the Democratic Policy Committee, over 
the last 3 years, 10 hearings on these issues of contract abuses. I 
suggested to the Armed Services Committee that they look into what is 
not only called the LOGCAP, which is a logistic contract which, in this 
case, Halliburton, or their subsidiary, KBR, provided certain logistics 
assistance to the Department of the Army under a contract worth 
billions of dollars, I suggested they also look into the RIO contract, 
which is Restore Iraqi Oil contract.
  I pointed out to them that the woman who rose to become the highest 
contract official in the U.S. Corps of Engineers--she rose to become 
the highest civilian contract official in the Army Corps of Engineers--
she said the awarding of the RIO contract, the Restore Iraqi Oil 
contract--Restore Iraqi Oil is what RIO stands for--to Halliburton and 
KBR was ``the most blatant contracting abuse I have seen in my entire 
career.'' This is from the top civilian contracting officer.
  What happened to her? She paid for that with her job. For that she 
was demoted. Before she said that publicly, she was given outstanding 
evaluations every year. Once she said publicly what she had told them 
privately, and they ignored, they began the process of giving her 
performance evaluations that were inferior for demotion.
  A couple of nights ago, I called the general, now retired, who 
brought this contracting officer in as the top civilian contracting 
officer. I said: What's the story?
  He said: She has been dealt an awful hand, and it has been very 
unfair to her. She is a straight-shooter, she is competent, she speaks 
the truth. The fact is, she is paying for telling the truth.
  I suggested to the Armed Services Committee that this woman, named 
Bunnatine Greenhouse, who had the courage to speak out against 
contracting abuse, should be called to testify.
  We ought to put a stop to this stuff that when someone in the Federal 
Government speaks out and says there is abuse occurring, the taxpayers 
are being abused, the soldiers are being disserved, that somehow they 
injure their career by telling the truth. But let me go on.
  I suggested the committee look into the RIO contract. I sent the 
issues raised by Bunnatine Greenhouse, who paid for her honesty with 
her job: she was demoted. I sent all that material to the inspector 
general. Seventeen months ago, I got a letter from the inspector 
general saying they received it, they looked into all those 
allegations, it has now been referred to the Justice Department, it is 
for their action, and because it is a criminal matter, they would not 
comment further.
  Obviously, they believed there was something that was serious. That 
is the RIO, the Restore Iraq Oil contract.

  There is another contract, and that is the purpose of the hearing 
this morning, the LOGCAP contract, once again, given to Halliburton and 
their subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root. What I told them this 
morning is what I found in 10 hearings. I held up a white towel, a 
white hand towel that most would recognize. It hangs in the bathrooms 
in most homes.
  A man named Henry Bunting came to us. Henry Bunting was in Kuwait. He 
was actually buying supplies for the troops in Iraq. Henry Bunting was 
a purchaser for KBR in Kuwait. They said to Henry Bunting: Buy some 
towels for the troops. So Henry goes about buying towels for the 
troops. But then the supervisor said: No, you can't buy those towels. 
You have to buy towels that have the embroidered name of KBR on the 
towel, triple the cost. Henry said it would cost a lot of money. It 
doesn't matter, the taxpayers are paying for this, cost plus. Triple 
the price of the towels so you can put the embroidered initials of the 
company on the towels.
  How about $45 for a case of Coca-Cola? How about $7,500 a month to 
lease an SUV? Henry Bunting told us about that as well.
  I described the other issues. Rory Mayberry--Rory showed up at a 
hearing. He was a food service supervisor for KBR in Iraq at a 
cafeteria. He said he was told by his supervisor: Don't you dare talk 
to Government auditors when they show up. If you do, you will get fired 
or you will get sent to an active combat zone. Don't you dare talk to a 
Government auditor.
  He said: We routinely provided food to the soldiers that had expired 
date stamps on it.
  The supervisor said: It doesn't matter--the expired date stamps--feed 
the expired food to the troops.
  We know from previous press accounts that at one point that company 
was charging for 42,000 meals a day to soldiers when they were actually 
only feeding 14,000 soldiers. Rory said the same thing. Rory Mayberry, 
a supervisor in one of the KBR food service situations in Iraq said 
they were charging for meals for soldiers who weren't there, and the 
supervisor said: We are doing that because we had lost money 
previously, so now we are charging for meals that aren't being served 
to soldiers.
  How about an eyewitness to an $85,000 brand new truck left beside the 
road in a noncombat zone in Iraq to be torched because they didn't have 
the proper wrench to fix the tire? It doesn't matter, the American 
taxpayer is going to buy the new truck, cost plus.

[[Page S4734]]

  The list is almost endless. It is unbelievable the stories we have 
heard from people who wish to come forward.
  One company, the same company under the LOGCAP contract, was to 
provide water to the military bases in Iraq--all of the bases. A 
whistleblower came to me and said: I have something you should see. It 
is a 21-page internal report, and it is written by a man named Will 
Granger who is in charge of all water going to the bases in Iraq. He is 
the KBR employee, Halliburton employee in charge of all water that goes 
to the bases in Iraq.
  He said instead of treating the water, nonpotable water which 
soldiers use to shower, shave, sometimes brush their teeth, and so on, 
instead of treating the water as it was supposed to have been treated 
under the contract, the water was more contaminated with E coli and 
bacteria than raw water from the Euphrates River.
  He said: Here is the internal report. The internal report said this 
was a near miss. It could have caused mass sickness or death.
  That was from the internal report I had in my hand. The company said 
it never happened. This is the internal report made by the man in the 
company whose name is Will Granger, who said: Here is what we 
discovered.
  Just after I held the hearing and described this situation, I 
received an e-mail from a young woman in Iraq who was an Army 
physician. She said: I read about this hearing about the water issue, 
the nonpotable water which was more contaminated than raw water from 
the Euphrates River that was being used for nonpotable water for 
soldiers. She said: It has happened on my base as well. She said: I 
started seeing these illnesses, conditions with the soldiers, and I had 
a lieutenant follow the waterline back. It is exactly the same 
circumstance--untreated water. We were paying for it, and the company 
wasn't doing what the contract requires, putting at risk those 
soldiers. The company denied it happened, but it is in black and white. 
The evidence exists.
  I described these issues and other issues this morning to the Armed 
Services Committee. I am pleased they are holding hearings. It is long 
past the time for them to hold these oversight hearings finding out 
what is happening and what we can do about it.
  Mr. President, these are important issues. I commend Senator Levin, 
Senator Warner, and all members of the Armed Services Committee for 
taking a serious look at these issues. My interest is not in tarnishing 
any company or anything like that. My interest is in making sure the 
American taxpayers are not disserved, and they have been. And my 
interest is the American soldiers are treated properly, and they have 
not been. What I saw with the waste, fraud, and abuse with these 
contracts, in my judgment, is a disservice to the American taxpayer and 
a disservice to the country's soldiers, and the fact is, we can fix 
this.

  I will describe at a later time the legislation I have introduced 
that deals with these contracting abuses so we can prevent them from 
ever happening again.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am speaking in favor of S. 378, the 
Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. I have had a personal 
experience with court security issues when I was a prosecutor, the 
chief prosecutor in Hennepin County.
  We had a very tragic incident, where a woman who had emotional 
difficulties came into our courthouse with a gun and gunned down a 
woman--an innocent woman--who was the guardian of her father's estate 
and was simply there to help. This had been a long-standing litigation 
battle. She tracked her down at the courthouse and shot her to death, 
and shot her own lawyer. Fortunately, he did not die. He survived. But 
this happened only a few floors below my office. We went on to 
prosecute this woman, and she was convicted and sentenced to life in 
prison for the murder and an additional 15 years for the attempted 
murder.
  That is why I am such a strong proponent of this bill. The Court 
Security Improvement Act will significantly improve our ability to 
protect judicial officials and all those who help to protect the fair 
and impartial justice system in America.
  The bill is going to improve court security by, first, enhancing 
measures that protect judicial personnel, witnesses, and family members 
of judicial personnel. I should note there is a provision in the bill 
that allows for State courthouses to apply for grants for things such 
as witness protection.
  I will say, coming from running an office of nearly 400 people, but 
operating in a local court system as opposed to the Federal system, 
there are increasing problems for local prosecutors with witness 
protection. I can't even count the number of witnesses we had 
threatened during trials. We had a juror threatened who actually had to 
get off the case after a call was made to her home during a trial in a 
gang case. We are seeing an increasing number of cases where we have 
witnesses threatened. Obviously, we don't have the Federal Witness 
Protection Program in a local district attorney's office, so I am very 
pleased there are some provisions for this and some realization that 
this is a growing issue.
  This bill would also increase funding for judicial security at the 
Federal and State levels. It would strengthen the relevant criminal 
penalties. It would authorize funds for the U.S. Marshals Service for 
judicial security. This is a good bill, and I stand in support of it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. I ask consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we hear much from the Bush administration 
and our Republican friends, almost on a daily basis, about how 
wonderfully our economy is doing. I recall not so long ago being at a 
Budget Committee hearing when we heard the Secretary of the Treasury, 
Mr. Paulson, indicating in fact that the economy is doing ``just 
marvelous.''
  Yet, for obvious reasons, the American people do not seem to agree 
with the Bush administration or with our Republican friends as to how 
well the economy is doing. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record segments of two polls that were recently released, one by 
CBS News and one by Gallup.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             CBS News Poll

    [Conducted 4/9-12/07; surveyed 994 adults; margin of error 3% 
   (release, 4/15). A response of * indicates less than 0.5 percent.]

       How about the economy? Do you approve or disapprove of the 
     way George W. Bush is handling the economy?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Percent
                                         -------------------------------
                                            All     Rep     Dem     Ind
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approve.................................      36      66      13      33
Disapprove..............................      57      27      79      60
Don't know/NA...........................       7       7       8       7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       How would you rate the condition of the national economy 
     these days? It is very good, fairly good, fairly bad or very 
     bad?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Percent
                                         -------------------------------
                                            All     Rep     Dem     Ind
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very good...............................       8      19       1       5
Fairly good.............................      51      61      44      48
Fairly bad..............................      28      15      38      30
Very bad................................      11       4      15      15
Don't know/NA...........................       2       1       2       2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Do you think the economy is getting better, getting worse 
     or staying about the same?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Percent
                                         -------------------------------
                                            All     Rep     Dem     Ind
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better..................................      11      24       4       7
Worse...................................      44      23      59      47
Same....................................      44      52      36      45
Don't know/NA...........................       1       1       1       1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Over the past 10 years, do you think life for middle class 
     Americans has gotten better or worse? (Percentage)

[[Page S4735]]

       Better, 30
       Worse, 59
       Same (vol.), 7
       Don't know/Refused, 4
       In the past couple of years, would you say you have been 
     getting ahead financially, just staying even financially or 
     falling behind financially? (Percentage)
       Getting ahead, 21
       Staying even, 50
       Falling behind, 27
        Don't know/NA, 2
       How much difficulty would you have if you had to pay an 
     unexpected bill of one thousand dollars right away--a lot, a 
     little, not much or none at all? (Percentage)
       A lot, 43
       A little, 24
       Not much, 15
       None at all, 17
       Don't know/NA, 1
       How concerned are you that you will have enough money to 
     pay for major expenses, for example, healthcare, tuition, 
     buying a home, and retirement? Are you very concerned, 
     somewhat concerned, not very concerned or not at all 
     concerned? (Percentage)
       Very concerned, 46
       Somewhat concerned, 33
       Not very concerned, 14
       Not at all concerned, 7
       These last few questions are for background only. A 
     person's social class is determined by a number of things 
     including education, income, occupation and wealth. If you 
     were asked to use one of these five names for your social 
     class, which would you say you belong in--upper class, upper-
     middle class, middle class, working class or lower class? 
     (Percentage)
       Upper, 2
       Upper middle, 13
       Middle, 42
       Working, 36
       Lower, 7
       Don't know/NA, 0

           [From the Gallup Poll', Apr. 16, 2007]

    Americans More in Favor of Heavily Taxing Rich Now Than in 1939

                           (By Frank Newport)

       Princeton, NJ.--About half of Americans advocate heavy 
     taxation of the rich in order to redistribute wealth, a 
     higher percentage than was the case in 1939. More generally, 
     a large majority of Americans support the principle that 
     wealth should be more evenly distributed in America, and an 
     increasing number--although still a minority--say there are 
     too many rich people in the country. Attitudes toward heavy 
     taxes on the rich are strongly related to one's own income, 
     and Democrats are much more likely to be in favor of income 
     redistribution than are Republicans.
       Basic Trends
       A poll commissioned by Fortune Magazine in 1939 and 
     conducted by famous pollster Elmo Roper included a question 
     phrased as follows:
       ``People feel differently about how far a government should 
     go. Here is a phrase which some people believe in and some 
     don't. Do you think our government should or should not 
     redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?''
       At that time, near the end of the Depression, only a 
     minority of Americans, 35%, said the government should impose 
     heavy taxes on the rich in order to redistribute wealth. A 
     slight majority--54%--said the government should not. (Eleven 
     percent did not have an opinion.)
       Gallup asked this question again in 1998 and found the 
     percentage willing to say that the government should 
     redistribute wealth had gone up by 10 points (while the ``no 
     opinion'' responses had dropped to 4% and the negative stayed 
     slightly above 50%).
       Now, the attitudes have shifted slightly again, to the 
     point where Americans' sentiment in response to this question 
     is roughly split, with 49% saying the government should 
     redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich, and 47% 
     disagreeing.
       People feel differently about how far a government should 
     go. Here is a phrase which some people believe in and some 
     don't. Do you think our government should or should not 
     redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Percent
                                             ---------------------------
                                                         No,
                                                Yes,    should     No
                                               should    not     opinion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 2 to 5, 2007..........................       49       47         4
April 23 to May 31, 1998....................       45       51         4
March 1939 \1\..............................       35       54        11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Roper for Fortune Magazine.

       One must be cautious in interpreting changes between the 
     1939 poll, which was conducted using different sampling and 
     methods than is the case today, and the current poll. It does 
     appear safe to say, however, that based on this one question, 
     the American public has become at least somewhat more 
     ``redistributionist'' over the almost seven decades since the 
     end of the Depression.
       The current results of this question are in line with a 
     separate Gallup question that asks whether various groups in 
     American society are paying their fair share of taxes, or too 
     much or too little. Two-thirds of Americans say ``upper-
     income people'' are paying too little in taxes.
       As I read off some different groups, please tell me if you 
     think they are paying their FAIR share in federal taxes, 
     paying too much or paying too little?
       Upper-income people:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Percent
                                      ----------------------------------
                                        Fair     Too     Too       No
                                        share   much    little   opinion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 2 to 5, 2007...................      21       9       66         4
April 10 to 13, 2006.................      21       8       67         4
April 4 to 7, 2005...................      22       7       68         3
April 5 to 8, 2004...................      24       9       63         4
April 7 to 9, 2003...................      24      10       63         3
April 6 to 7, 1999...................      19      10       66         5
April 9 to 10, 1996..................      19       9       68         4
April 16 to 18, 1994.................      20      10       68         2
March 29 to 31, 1993.................      16       5       77         2
March 26 to 29, 1992.................      16       4       77         3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       There is no trend on this question going back to the 1930s, 
     but the supermajority agreement that upper-income people pay 
     too little in taxes has been evident for the last 15 years.
       More on attitudes toward wealth and the rich:
       The most recent Gallup Poll included two other questions 
     measuring attitudes toward wealth and the rich.
       Do you feel that the distribution of money and wealth in 
     this country today is fair, or do you feel that the money and 
     wealth in this country should be more evenly distributed 
     among a larger percentage of the people?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Percent
                               -----------------------------------------
                                                Should be more
                                 Distribution       evenly         No
                                    is fair       distributed    opinion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 2 to 5, 2007............              29              66         5
January 10 to 12, 2003........              31              63         6
September 11 to 13, 2000......              38              56         6
April 23 to May 31, 1998......              31              63         6
April 25 to 28, 1996..........              33              62         5
May 17 to 20, 1990............              28              66         6
December 7 to 10, 1984D31.....              60               9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The results of this question, asked seven times over the 
     past 23 years, have consistently shown that Americans are 
     strongly in favor of the principle that money and wealth in 
     this country should be more evenly distributed. The current 
     66% who feel that way is tied for the highest reading on this 
     measure across this time period in which the question has 
     been asked.
       A separate question asked:
       As far as you are concerned, do we have too many rich 
     people in this country, too few, or about the right amount?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Percent
                                ----------------------------------------
                                                        Right      No
                                  Too many   Too few    amount   opinion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 2 to 5, 2007.............         37         17       40         6
April 23 to May 31, 1998.......         25         20       50         5
May 17 to 20, 1990.............         21         15       55         9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Here we have evidence of a growing resentment toward the 
     rich. The percentage of Americans who say there are too many 
     rich people in the United States--although still a minority--
     is up significantly from the two times in the 1990s when this 
     question was asked.
       In summary, the data show that:
       A significant majority of Americans feel that money and 
     wealth should be distributed more equally across a larger 
     percentage of the population.
       A significant majority of Americans feel that the rich pay 
     too little in taxes.
       About half of Americans support the idea of ``heavy'' taxes 
     on the rich to help redistribute wealth.
       Almost 4 out of 10 Americans flat-out say there are ``too 
     many'' rich people in the country


                              Implications

       Most societies experience tensions revolving around 
     inequalities of wealth among those societies' members. This 
     seemingly inevitable fact of life has been at the core of 
     revolutions throughout history. American society has been 
     immune from massive revolts of those at the bottom end of the 
     spectrum in part because the public perceives that the United 
     States is an open society with upward social mobility. A 
     recent Gallup Poll found a majority of Americans believing 
     that people who make a lot of money deserve it, and that 
     almost anyone can get rich if they put their mind to it. And 
     a 2003 Gallup Poll found that about a third of Americans, 
     including a significantly higher percentage of younger 
     Americans, believed that they themselves would one day be 
     rich.
       The findings reviewed in this report most likely reflect at 
     least in part the fact that it is easy to advocate greater 
     taxation of the rich, since most Americans do not consider 
     themselves rich.
       In fact, a 2003 Gallup Poll found that the median annual 
     income that Americans considered ``rich'' was $122,000. Since 
     the average income in America is markedly below that, it 
     follows that most Americans do not consider themselves rich. 
     (Eighty percent of Americans put themselves in the middle 
     class, working class, or lower class. Only 1 % identify 
     themselves as being in the upper class, while 19% are willing 
     to say the upper middle class.)
       The data show that as one gets closer to being what 
     Americans consider rich, one is also less interested in the 
     rich being taxed heavily. This relationship is fairly linear; 
     the more money one makes in general, the more likely one is 
     to say that the government should not be imposing heavy taxes 
     on the rich.
       People feel differently about how far a government should 
     go. Here is a phrase which some people believe in and some 
     don't. Do you think our government should or should not 
     redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?

[[Page S4736]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Percent
                                                       -----------------
                        Income                                     No,
                                                          Yes,    should
                                                         should    not
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$75,000+..............................................       35       62
$50,000 to $75,000....................................       46       51
$30,000 to $50,000....................................       58       41
$20,000 to $30,000....................................       55       42
$20,000...............................................       64       26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       There are also political differences in views on heavy 
     taxes on the rich. Democrats are more than twice as likely as 
     Republicans to agree that the government should redistribute 
     wealth by heavy taxes on the rich.
       People feel differently about how far a government should 
     go. Here is a phrase which some people believe in and some 
     don't. Do you think our government should or should not 
     redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Percent
                                                       -----------------
                         Party                                     No,
                                                          Yes,    should
                                                         should    not
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican............................................       30       68
Independent...........................................       51       43
Democrat..............................................       63       32
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Bottom Line

       Americans in general agree with the concept that money and 
     wealth should be distributed more equally in society today, 
     and that the upper-income class of Americans do not pay their 
     fair share in taxes. About half of Americans are willing to 
     go so far as advocate ``heavy taxes'' on the rich in order to 
     redistribute wealth. These findings are despite the belief of 
     many Americans that the rich deserve their money and the 
     hopes Americans themselves harbor that they will be rich some 
     day.
       From a political viewpoint, these data suggest that a 
     political platform focused on addressing the problems of the 
     lower and middle classes contrasted with the rich, including 
     heavier taxes on the upper class, could meet with significant 
     approval, particularly among Democrats and those with lower 
     incomes.


                             Survey Methods

       These results are based on telephone interviews with a 
     randomly selected national sample of 1,008 adults, aged 18 
     and older, conducted April 2-5, 2007. For results based on 
     this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum 
     error attributable to sampling and other random effects is 3 
     percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question 
     wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can 
     introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion 
     polls.

  Mr. SANDERS. When the American people were asked by CBS News the 
question, ``Do you think the economy is getting better, getting worse 
or staying about the same?'' 11 percent of the American people said the 
economy is getting better, 44 percent thought it was getting worse, and 
44 percent thought it was about the same.
  Then, interestingly, in that same poll, when the American people were 
asked by CBS the question, ``Over the past 10 years, do you think life 
for middle class Americans has gotten better or worse?'' 30 percent 
said life has gotten better, 59 percent, almost a 2-to-1 margin, said 
life is getting worse, and 7 percent said the same.
  Technology has exploded in recent years. Our workers are far more 
productive than used to be the case. Yet by a 2-to-1 margin the 
American people have said that life for the middle class is getting 
worse, not better.
  In terms of the Gallup Poll, the Gallup people, from April 2 to April 
5, asked some very interesting questions that we very often do not 
speak about here on the floor of the Senate. In my view, what we have 
seen since President Bush has been in office, in a general sense, is 
the shrinking of the middle class, an increase in poverty, and a 
growing gap between the rich and the poor--not something we talk about 
terribly often on the floor of the Senate, not something that is talked 
about terribly often in the corporate media. But here is the question, 
very interestingly, that Gallup asked the American people, between 
April 2 and April 5: ``Do you feel that the distribution of money and 
wealth in this country today is fair, or do you feel that the money and 
wealth in this country should be more evenly distributed among a larger 
percentage of the people?'' Answer: Distribution is fair, 29 percent; 
should be more evenly distributed, 66 percent.
  Then the next question they asked, which was rather a clumsy 
question, I thought, and I was surprised by the answer, but this was 
the question. Question: ``People feel differently about how far a 
government should go. Here is a phrase which some people believe in and 
some don't. Do you think our Government should or should not 
redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?''
  That is a pretty clumsy question. Do you know what the answer was to 
that rather clumsy question? Yes, should redistribute wealth, 49 
percent; no, should not, 47 percent.
  I mention this poll because it is important to understand that 
despite a lot of the rhetoric we hear from the White House and on the 
floor of the Senate, the American people understand that in terms of 
our economy, something is fundamentally wrong. They understand it 
because they are living the experience of working longer hours for 
lower wages; of working day after day, trying to pay the bills for 
their family, trying to send their kids to college, trying to take care 
of health care, trying to provide childcare for their kids. They know 
the reality of the economy because they are the economy.
  Every single day the people of our country are seeing an economy 
which is forcing them in many instances to work longer hours for lower 
wages, an economy in which they wonder how their kids are going to be 
able to go to college, able to afford college; an economy in which they 
worry that for the first time in the modern history of our country, 
their children will see a lower standard of living than they do. That 
is the reality of the economy, in the eyes, I believe, of millions of 
American workers.
  That perception that the American worker has of the economy is, in my 
view, the correct perception of what is going on. Since George W. Bush 
has been President, more than 5 million Americans have slipped into 
poverty, including 1 million children. This country now has the very 
dubious distinction of having by far the highest rate of childhood 
poverty of any major industrialized country on Earth. How do you have a 
great economy, a booming economy, when 5 million more Americans have 
slipped into poverty? Median income has declined in our country for 5 
years in a row. Americans understand that the economy is not doing well 
when the personal savings rate is below zero, which has not happened 
since the Great Depression. How do we talk about a strong economy when 
7 million Americans have lost their health insurance since President 
Bush has been in office, and when we now have, unbelievably, 47 million 
Americans who have no health insurance at all?
  How can anybody come to the floor of the Senate, or anybody in the 
Bush administration talk about a strong economy, when we have 47 
million Americans who have no health insurance at all; when 35 million 
Americans in our country, the richest country in the history of the 
world, struggled to put food on the table last year; and the number of 
the poorest, most hungry Americans keeps getting larger? The American 
people understand this is not an economy that is working for ordinary 
people. In this economy today, more and more of our brothers and 
sisters, our fellow Americans, are going hungry. Let's not talk about a 
booming economy when we have children in America who are hungry.
  Mr. President, you and I have heard, over and over again, people 
talking about the importance of education for this country. Yet 
millions of working families do not know how they are going to be able 
to send their kids to college when the cost of college education is 
soaring, when the average person graduating a 4-year college leaves 
that school $20,000 in debt, when hundreds of thousands of young people 
are now giving up the dream of going to college because they don't want 
to come out deeply in debt? How do we talk about a booming economy when 
so many of our young people, some of the brightest, most able of our 
young people, are giving up the dream of going to college? How do you 
compete on the international and global economy if so many of our young 
people are not able to get the kind of education they need?
  When we talk about a booming economy, how does that correlate with 
the fact that our manufacturing infrastructure is falling apart, that 
since President Bush has been in office we have lost over 3 million 
good manufacturing jobs, and when people go out to the store to shop, 
when they look at the product, they know where that product is 
manufactured today? It is not manufactured in the United States. Over 
and over again they see it is manufactured in China.

[[Page S4737]]

  We have a trade deficit now of over $700 billion. In my small State 
of Vermont, not a manufacturing center, we lost 20 percent of our 
manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years and that phenomenon is going on 
all over this country. How do you have a booming economy when we are 
losing huge numbers of good-paying manufacturing jobs and we are on the 
cusp of losing millions of good-paying, white-collar information 
technology jobs?
  Three million fewer American workers today have pension coverage than 
when President Bush took office. Half of private sector American 
workers have no pension coverage whatsoever. How does that speak to a 
strong economy? It was not so many years ago that workers understood 
that when they left their job, there would be a defined pension 
available to them. They knew what they were getting. Today, those days 
seem like ancient history. Fewer and fewer workers have solid pensions 
on which to depend.
  What is important to understand is, while poverty is increasing, 
while the middle class is shrinking, while more and more people are 
losing their health insurance, while hunger is growing in America, 
while good-paying jobs are going to China, the truth is not all is bad 
in the American economy. We have to acknowledge that. Are there some 
people who in fact are doing well? The answer is yes. Today, the simple 
truth is the top 1 percent of the families in our country have not had 
it so good since the 1920s. When that poll I mentioned from Gallup 
talks about the American people wanting to seek an understanding of the 
unfair distribution of wealth, this is precisely what they are 
referring to.
  Today in the United States we have by far the most unequal 
distribution of income and wealth of any major country on Earth. Let me 
highlight very briefly a recent study done by Professor Emmanuel Saez 
from the University of California-Berkeley and Professor Thomas Piketty 
from the Paris School of Economics. This is what they found. In 2005, 
while average incomes for the bottom 90 percent of Americans declined 
by $172, the wealthiest one one-hundredth of 1 percent reported an 
average income of $25.7 million, a 1-year increase of $4.4 million.
  In other words, for the people at the very top, a huge increase in 
their income, while 90 percent of the American people saw a decline. 
The gap between the rich and the poor, the rich and the middle class, 
continues to grow wider.
  The top 1 percent of Americans received, in 2005, the largest share 
of national income since 1928. And some people may remember what 
happened in 1929. The top 300,000 Americans now earn nearly as much 
income as the bottom 150 million Americans combined.
  You and I have heard many of our friends here on the other side of 
the aisle talk about how much the wealthy are paying in taxes. My, my, 
my. Yet the reason for that is what we are seeing is, with the decline 
of the middle class, a huge increase in the percentage of the income 
being made by the people on top. Let me repeat it. The top 300,000 
Americans now earn nearly as much income as the bottom 150 million 
Americans. Is that the kind of country we really want to become, with 
so few having so much and so many having so little? I do not think that 
is the America most people want to see us evolve into, an oligarchic 
form of society. That is wrong.
  According to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the 
wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 
trillion--$1.25 trillion for the wealthiest 400 Americans. That is an 
astounding number. The reality is that in America today, we have the 
people on the top who have more income, in some cases, than they are 
going to be able to spend in a thousand lifetimes, while people in 
Vermont, people in Ohio, people in Minnesota, people all over our 
country are struggling so hard to provide basic needs for their 
families.
  One of the reasons the gap between the rich and the poor is growing 
wider and why we now have by far the most unequal distribution of 
income and wealth of any major country is due to the passage of massive 
tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires since President Bush has 
been in office.
  Now, you stop and you take a look at the needs of the people of our 
country in the most basic sense.
  Hunger is increasing. Well, what do we think? Should we eliminate 
hunger in America or do you give tax breaks to billionaires? I don't 
think too many people would disagree with what we should be doing.
  We have a crisis in affordable childcare in America. We have single 
moms, working families, both parents going to work, trying to provide 
well for their 2-year-old, 3-year-old. They cannot provide affordable 
childcare. The Federal Government provides totally inadequate 
childcare. Do we increase funding for childcare or do we give tax 
breaks to millionaires?
  We are all aware of the scandal at Walter Reed Hospital. We are all 
aware of the outrageously inadequate way we treat our veterans, men and 
women who put their lives on the line defending this country. Yet when 
they come home from Iraq, there is inadequate care at the hospital at 
Walter Reed and inadequate care and waiting lines at VA hospitals all 
over America. What is our priority? Do we take care of our veterans or 
do we give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires?
  In America, millions of children do not have any health insurance. 
What are our priorities?
  People are paying 50 percent of their limited income for housing 
because we are not building affordable housing. What are our 
priorities?
  We have a major crisis in global warming. We should be investing in 
sustainable energy, energy efficiency, not giving tax breaks to 
billionaires. What are our priorities?
  Let me conclude by saying that I think the American people, on issue 
after issue, are far ahead of where we are in Congress. So we are going 
to have to work very hard to catch up to where the American people are. 
I think we should begin the process of doing that.
  We need to fundamentally change our national priorities. We have to 
have the courage now to stand up to the wealthiest people and the 
largest corporations and say to those people: The free ride is over.
  Our job is to represent the middle class, working families, the lower 
income people who are not getting justice from the Congress. When we 
stand and do the right thing for the middle class and working families 
of this country, I believe we are going to see a significant increase 
in the respect this body receives.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. 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. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this crucial 
legislation. I want to read into the record a statement from the Bush 
administration in support of the bill. It is from the Executive Office 
of the President, Statement of Administration Policy:

       The Administration supports Senate passage of S. 378 to 
     strengthen judicial security. The legislation would enhance 
     the ability of the Federal government to prosecute 
     individuals who attack or threaten participants in the 
     Nation's judicial system, including judges, lawyers, 
     witnesses, and law enforcement officers. A Nation founded on 
     the rule of law must protect the integrity of its judicial 
     system, which must apply the law without fear or favor. The 
     Administration also supports the provision to prohibit the 
     filing of false liens against judges, prosecutors, and other 
     government officials to retaliate against them for the 
     performance of their official duties.

  Another of the most important provisions of this bill was brought to 
our attention by Judge Carr of the Northern District Court in Toledo, 
OH. Judge Carr pointed out the importance of section 101 that 
``enhances the ability of the Judicial Conference of the United States 
to participate in determining the security needs of the judicial branch 
by requiring the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service . . . to consult 
with the Judicial Conference on an ongoing basis regarding the security 
requirements of the judicial branch.''
  This legislation makes sense for a variety of reasons. Not only must 
our judges be protected, but they must have a seat at the table in 
determining

[[Page S4738]]

the safety of our Federal courthouses and the personal safety of the 
employees of the Federal judiciary and the participants who come in 
front of the Federal bench.
  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.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment before us that will split the Ninth Circuit. We will be 
voting on a point of order at 2 o'clock.
  I think it is very unfortunate that the pending bill, to make much-
needed improvements in the security of our judges, is being threatened 
by a rehashing of an old and bad idea to split the circuit. There is a 
raft of reasons why the Senate should defeat this effort to divide the 
Ninth Circuit. First, it would be a serious blow to judicial 
independence if the circuit were to be split because of disagreement 
with its decisions. It would also result in an unfair distribution of 
the Ninth Circuit caseload. Judges in the new Ninth Circuit would be 
much more busy than their counterparts on the Twelfth Circuit. The 
proposal that is being made by Senator Ensign essentially takes 
California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Mariana Islands and puts them into 
their own Ninth Circuit, and takes all the big continental States that 
are now part of the Ninth Circuit and creates a Twelfth Circuit. That 
is the proposal that is before the body now.
  This proposal would also destroy the current uniformity of the law in 
the West. It would have significant costs that the judiciary cannot 
afford to bear, given its already tight budgets, and it is opposed by 
the vast majority of the people who know the circuit best: its judges. 
Virtually overwhelmingly I think all but three or four of the judges in 
the Ninth Circuit oppose its splitting.
  I agree with many of the Ninth Circuit's decisions. I disagree with 
some of them. However, the Framers of the Constitution intended the 
judiciary to be independent and free from congressional or Presidential 
pressure or reprisal. I am concerned that recent attempts to split the 
Ninth Circuit are part of an assault on the independence of the 
judiciary by those who disagree with some of the court's rulings.
  As former Gov. Pete Wilson has stated:

       These attempts are judicial ``gerrymandering,'' designed to 
     isolate and punish judges whose decisions some disagree with. 
     They are antithetical to the Constitution.

  That is not me saying that; that is the former Republican Governor of 
California.
  Attempting to coerce or punish judges or rig the system is not an 
appropriate response to disagreements with a court's decisions. Rather, 
it is essential that we preserve our system of checks and balances and 
make it clear that politicians will not meddle in the work of judges. 
The configuration of the Ninth Circuit is not set in stone; however, 
any change to the Ninth Circuit should be guided by concerns of 
efficiency and administration, not ideology.
  After a substantial review of the statistics, decisions, and reports 
from those who know the circuit best, it is clear that splitting the 
Ninth Circuit would hinder its mission of providing justice for the 
people of the West.
  The split proposal before us would unfairly distribute judicial 
resources to the West. This is the key. The Ninth Circuit would keep 71 
percent of the caseload of the current circuit but only 58 percent of 
its permanent judges. Any split we look at, because California is so 
big, tilts the circuit and, of course, all of the proponents of the 
circuit split take the judges with them. So it leaves a 
disproportionate share of a heavy caseload in the Ninth Circuit--unless 
you split California, and to split California creates a host of 
technical and legal problems.
  Last year, the Ninth Circuit had a caseload of 570 cases per judge, 
as opposed to a national average of 381 cases per judge. So under the 
proposed split, the Ensign plan, the average caseload in the new Ninth 
Circuit would actually increase to 600 cases per judge, while the new 
Twelfth Circuit would have half that, 326 cases per judge. There is no 
effort to give the Ninth the new judges they would need to keep the 
caseload even. This inequitable division of resources would leave 
residents of California and Hawaii facing greater delays and with court 
services inferior to their Twelfth Circuit neighbors.
  The uniformity of law in the West is a key advantage of the Ninth 
Circuit, offering consistency to States that share many common 
concerns. The size of the Ninth Circuit is an asset, offering a unified 
legal approach to issues from immigration to the environment. Dividing 
the circuit would make solving these problems even more difficult. For 
example, splitting the circuit could result in different 
interpretations in California and Arizona of laws that govern 
immigration, different applications of environmental regulations on the 
California and Nevada sides of Lake Tahoe, and different intellectual 
property law in Silicon Valley and the Seattle technology corridor. 
These differences would have real economic costs. These are border 
States, and trade and commerce in the Pacific is a huge part of what 
they do. Therefore, the legal consistency between them is an asset, not 
a disadvantage.
  In a time of tight judicial budgets, splitting the circuit would add 
significant and unnecessary expense. The split actually would require 
additional Federal funds to duplicate the current staff of the Ninth 
Circuit and a new or expanded courthouse and an administrative building 
since existing judicial facilities for a Twelfth Circuit are 
inadequate. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts estimated that 
creating a Twelfth Circuit would have a startup cost of $96 million, 
with another $16 million in annual recurring cost.
  If we are going to do anything, what we need is more judges on the 
Ninth Circuit. That is the key. With budget pressures already forcing 
our Federal courts to cut staff and curtail services, this is no time 
to impose new, unnecessary costs on the judiciary.
  My colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, joins me in these remarks. She 
will have a separate statement.
  Those who know the Ninth Circuit best overwhelming oppose the split. 
Of the active Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges, 18 oppose the 
split, to be exact, and only 3 support it. The district court and 
bankruptcy judges of the Ninth Circuit also oppose the split. Every 
State bar association that has weighed in on the split--Alaska, 
Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington--opposes 
breaking up the Ninth Circuit, and more than 100 different national, 
regional, and local organizations have written to urge that the Ninth 
Circuit be kept intact.
  I believe splitting the Ninth Circuit would create more problems 
right now than it would solve. It will not solve the caseload problem 
of the circuit, and that is the critical issue. Those who propose the 
split do so to unfairly benefit themselves because they also take the 
judges from the Ninth Circuit and they add them to the Twelfth Circuit. 
They would end up having a caseload per judge of one-half of what the 
caseload would be in a new Ninth Circuit. So it is not a fair plan 
because it does not fairly distribute the resources based on caseload. 
I believe there is only one criterion for resources, and that is 
caseload. The judges must be where the cases are, and that should be an 
inescapable truth that we follow.
  I urge the Senate to vote to sustain the point of order on the Ensign 
amendment to split the Ninth Circuit, and instead let's focus our 
attention on securing the courts and then, secondly, providing the 
judges who are necessary to equalize caseloads throughout the Nation.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment 
violates section 505(a) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution 
on the budget for fiscal year 2004; that at 2 p.m. today, a vote occur 
on Senator Ensign's motion to waive the point of order, considered made 
by this agreement, with the time until 2 p.m. equally divided and 
controlled between Senators Feinstein and Ensign or their designees; 
that if the motion to waive the Budget Act is not successful, then 
without further intervening action or debate, the bill be read a third 
time and the Senate vote

[[Page S4739]]

on passage of the bill; that if the motion to waive the Budget Act is 
successful, the provision on third reading and passage be vitiated.
  I ask that the preceding be done by unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to sustain the 
budget point of order because the underlying amendment, which would 
split the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is not yet ripe for 
consideration by this body. The issue is a very complicated one as to 
what will happen with the Ninth Circuit. It is admittedly too large at 
the present time, but we have a lot of analysis to do as to which 
States ought to be in which divisions. It is an issue which the 
Judiciary Committee has wrestled with for some time. We took it up in 
the 109th Congress. The two confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and 
Justice Alito took a great deal of time, as did the PATRIOT Act, and 
our bankruptcy legislation and class action reform, the confirmation 
process generally. I know Senator Leahy, as chairman, plans to take up 
this issue as soon as we can do so. We are not ripe for action.
  When we finish the next vote, we will be taking up final passage on 
the Court Security Act. I urge my colleagues to pass this important 
legislation. There is no doubt that there is a real threat to judges. 
We have seen violence right in the courtroom. We have seen violence 
against family members of Federal judges. We have seen the 
extraordinary situation that in April of 2005, cookies with rat poison 
were mailed to each of the nine Supreme Court Justices, also to FBI 
Director Robert Mueller, and others in the Federal establishment.
  The core legislation was introduced during the 109th Congress in 
November 7, 2005. It passed unanimously. We need to pass it now to make 
some very important changes to provide for the security of our Federal 
judges.
  I see the arrival of the Senator from California who has raised a 
budget point of order. I know we plan to vote imminently.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the 
Ensign amendment. Splitting the circuit would have detrimental effects 
on the West--in particular, in my home State of Montana. Splitting the 
Ninth Circuit would eliminate uniformity of law in the West. States 
sharing common concerns such as the environment and Native American 
rights could end up with different rules of law. This would create 
confusion and cause serious problems between States.
  And splitting the Ninth Circuit would impose huge new costs. A split 
would require new Federal funds for courthouses and administrative 
buildings. Existing judicial facilities are just not equipped for a new 
circuit. The Administrative Office estimates these start-up costs to be 
$96 million, and then $16 million in annual recurring costs under the 
proposed split. The judiciary budget is already stretched thin. The 
creation of a new and costly bureaucracy to administer the new circuit 
would just add to our growing deficit. And this proposal does not have 
the support of the people whom it will most directly affect.
  Judges on the circuit oppose the split. Members of the State bars 
affected by the split oppose it. And almost 100 Federal, State, and 
local organizations oppose splitting the Ninth Circuit. Only 3 of the 
26 active judges on the Ninth Circuit favor splitting the circuit. Many 
State bars oppose this proposal including Alaska, Washington, Nevada, 
Hawaii, and Arizona. Even the Federal Bar Association and the appellate 
section of the Oregon bar feel strongly that we should not split the 
Ninth Circuit. The State Bar of Montana does not support this proposal. 
The Montana bar unanimously passed a resolution opposing division of 
the Ninth Circuit.
  We ought to be listening to the people on the ground who deal with 
this issue every day, not creating hardship from our offices in DC. 
Let's be frank here. The motivation behind splitting the circuit is 
political. It is an attempt to control the decisions of the judiciary 
by rearranging the bench. The judiciary is supposed to be an 
independent branch of government. It must remain so. Splitting the 
circuit is not the right thing to do for Montana. It is not the right 
thing to do for the country.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, once again we are faced with a proposal to 
split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes my home State 
of California.
  The amendment before us today would create a ``new'' Ninth Circuit, 
with California, Hawaii, and Guam, and a new 12th Circuit, consisting 
of other Western States.
  I oppose this amendment for three reasons: First, splitting the Ninth 
Circuit would place a greater burden on California Federal appellate 
judges. Under the new plan, California judges would constitute only 58 
percent of the former circuit's judicial staff, but required to handle 
more than 70 percent of former circuit's total caseload. Second, 
splitting the Ninth Circuit is unnecessary. The Ninth Circuit has 
performed well according to most performance measures, despite having 
one of the highest caseloads per judge in the country. Third, splitting 
the Ninth Circuit is opposed by the majority of people who would be 
most affected--the judges and attorneys of the Ninth Circuit.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary amendment that has 
nothing to do with court security, and creates new problems and costs 
for the parties, lawyers and judges that practice in the Ninth Circuit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Nevada is expected to make a motion to waive the Budget Act.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to rule on the point of 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained.
  The amendment falls.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to comment on section 207 of the 
pending matter, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. Section 207 
increases the statutory maximum penalties for the Federal offense of 
manslaughter. Pursuant to this legislation, the maximum penalty for 
involuntary manslaughter will be increased from 6 to 10 years, and the 
penalty for voluntary manslaughter will be increased from 10 to 20 
years. This is a change that I sought to have included in last year's 
various court security bills. I am pleased to see that it will be 
included in this year's final Senate bill.
  The need for an increase in the manslaughter statutory maximum 
penalty is made clear in testimony that was presented before the U.S. 
Sentencing Commission by Paul Charlton, the U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Arizona, on March 25, 2003. Despite recent changes to the 
guidelines for manslaughter offenses, the typical DUI involuntary 
manslaughter crime still is subject to a sentencing range of only 30 to 
37 months. Yet, as Mr. Charlton noted in his testimony, under Arizona 
State law, the presumptive sentence for a typical DUI involuntary 
manslaughter offense is 10\1/2\ years. In other words, despite recent 
guidelines adjustments, the Federal criminal justice system still 
imposes a sentence for involuntary manslaughter in drunk driving cases 
that is only a third of the sentence that would be imposed for the 
exact same conduct under State law.
  Mr. Charlton concluded that there is a ``dire need for immediate 
improvements to the manslaughter statutory penalty and sentencing 
guidelines.'' As he noted, ``the respect and confidence of surviving 
victims in the federal criminal justice system is severely undermined 
and will continue to be unless the statutory maximum penalties are 
increased to reflect the seriousness of the crime and the sentencing 
guidelines are comparably changed to reflect that increase.''
  With this bill, the Congress finally acts on Mr. Charlton's 
recommendation to increase the statutory maximum. I would like to 
emphasize, however, that enactment of section 207 does not alone finish 
the job. As Mr.

[[Page S4740]]

Charlton noted in his testimony, even after Congress increased 
statutory penalties for these offenses in 1998, the sentences imposed 
by Federal courts ``remain[ed] inadequate to deter and punish offenders 
[as of March 2003] because the federal manslaughter sentencing 
guideline was never changed to reflect the increased penalty.''
  The Sentencing Commission did eventually adjust the guidelines in 
response to the 1998 amendments, albeit 5 years after those changes 
were enacted. In case a staffer for the Sentencing Commission reads 
this speech in the Congressional Record, let me be clear: yes, we do 
expect the Commission to adjust the guidelines for voluntary and 
involuntary manslaughter in order to reflect the statutory changes made 
by section 207. And please persuade the Commissioners to act 
expeditiously. If this matter is not addressed during the next 
appropriate period for submitting proposed changes to the guidelines, I 
will contact the Commission to inquire why no adjustment has been made.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Charlton's 2003 testimony before the 
Sentencing Commission be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Testimony Before the U.S. Sentencing Commission

                           (By Paul Charlton)

       Members of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, thank you for 
     giving me the opportunity to appear before you to discuss 
     sentencing in federal manslaughter cases. This topic is 
     particularly important to the District of Arizona because my 
     district routinely handles the highest number of prosecutions 
     under the Major Crimes Act arising out of violations in 
     Indian country, including federal manslaughter cases, in the 
     United States. The low statutory and guideline sentences for 
     these offenses are a topic of frustration routinely discussed 
     among my counterparts with similar criminal jurisdiction 
     responsibilities and who serve on the United States Attorney 
     General's Native American Issues Advisory Subcommittee.
       The District of Arizona encompasses the entire state of 
     Arizona. We have exclusive authority to prosecute Major 
     Crimes Act violations occurring within Arizona's 21 Indian 
     Reservations. Two of the nation's largest Indian Reservations 
     are located in Arizona--the Navajo Nation, with an 
     approximate total population of 275,000 members and a land 
     base of over 17 million acres spanning three states (Arizona, 
     New Mexico and Utah), and the Tohono O'odham Nation, with an 
     approximate total population of 24,000 members and a land 
     base comparable to the state of Connecticut. Recent 
     Department of Justice data revealed that the violent crime 
     rate on the Navajo Reservation is six times the national 
     average. In total, in calendar year 2002, my office handled a 
     total of 64 manslaughter and 94 murder cases. In a two-year 
     period ending September 2002, the Flagstaff division of the 
     U.S. Attorney's Office (which responds to Northern Arizona 
     federal crimes) handled 65 homicide prosecutions, including 
     27 manslaughter and 38 murder cases.
       In the summer of 2001, this Commission held a hearing on 
     the impact of the sentencing guidelines on Indians committing 
     offenses in Indian country. The perception going into this 
     hearing was that Indians sentenced under the federal 
     sentencing guidelines are treated more harshly than those who 
     are adjudicated in the State system. The experiences of 
     federal prosecutors in my District as they relate to the 
     crimes of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter are not 
     consistent with this perception. Our perception, and that of 
     many Indian and non-Indian victims, is that the federal 
     criminal justice system is in many circumstances unjust. 
     Consequently, the respect and confidence of surviving victims 
     in the federal criminal justice system is severely undermined 
     and will continue to be unless the statutory maximum 
     penalties are increased to reflect the seriousness of the 
     crime and the sentencing guidelines are comparably changed to 
     reflect that increase.
       In 1994, the United States Congress amended the penalty for 
     involuntary manslaughter from three years to the current six 
     year maximum term. [Footnote: See H.R. Conf. Rep. 103-711 
     (1994).] The primary purpose for the amendment was to correct 
     the inadequacy of the three-year penalty as it applied to 
     drunk driving homicides. In passing the amendment, one 
     Senator noted ``Involuntary manslaughter most often occurs 
     through reckless or drunken driving. A three-year maximum 
     sentence is not adequate to vindicate the most egregious 
     instances of this conduct, which takes an increasing toll of 
     innocent victims' lives.'' [Footnote: 134 CONG. REC. S.7446-
     01 (statement of Sen. Byrd).] I applaud Congress' efforts in 
     amending the law. However, it has become abundantly clear 
     that the current statutory penalties remain inadequate to 
     deter and punish offenders because the federal manslaughter 
     sentencing guideline was never changed to reflect the 
     increased penalty.
       Today, the average range of sentence for a defendant for 
     involuntary manslaughter is 16-24 months imprisonment 
     followed by three years on Supervised Release. I would like 
     to share with you some of the experiences faced by federal 
     prosecutors assigned to DUI homicides in Indian country to 
     illustrate the gravity of theses crimes, the comparable state 
     sentences imposed, and to demonstrate the need for increased 
     penalties and comparable sentencing guidelines:
       Kyle Peterson, was charged with one count of involuntary 
     manslaughter for the death of a 60-year-old man who was 
     driving to work southbound on the Loop 101 Freeway in 
     Phoenix. Peterson was driving north in the southbound lanes 
     of the Loop 101. The two vehicles collided head-on as they 
     entered a portion of the freeway located in Indian country. 
     The victim was killed instantly. Peterson suffered serious 
     head injuries but his recovery has been positive. At the time 
     of impact Peterson's blood alcohol level was .158. He pled 
     guilty to the charge of involuntary manslaughter with no 
     agreements and was sentenced to 14 months in custody followed 
     by three years on supervised release. In her victim impact 
     statement, the decedent's widow stated ``[f]inally there is 
     me rage at a system that allows a criminal to face almost no 
     punishment because of Federal Sentencing Commission laws . . 
     . DUI is a criminal offense. Why does the Federal system not 
     treat it as such?''
       Gaylen Lomatuwayma was charged with one count of 
     involuntary manslaughter after he struck and killed the 
     victim, who was walking along Navajo Route 2. The crash took 
     place after a night of drinking in Flagstaff, Arizona. The 
     defendant kept driving until his truck stopped working. He 
     was indicted on one count of involuntary manslaughter and was 
     sentenced to 21 months in custody followed by 3 years on 
     supervised release.
       In July, 2001, Zacharay Guerrero was driving intoxicated on 
     the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Reservation near Phoenix when he 
     failed to stop at a clearly posted stop sign. He collided 
     with a vehicle occupied by two female tribal members. On 
     impact, both females were ejected from the vehicle, which 
     ignited in flames and burned at the scene. Guerrero fled the 
     scene. Investigation revealed that the defendant's vehicle 
     had an impact speed of between 64 and 70 mph (while the 
     posted speed limit was 35 mph) and the victim vehicle had an 
     impact speed of 9 mph. One victim died at the scene. The 
     medical examiner attributed her death to multiple blunt force 
     trauma due to the motor-vehicle impact. The second victim 
     died two months later. While there were small amounts of 
     alcohol detected in the victim/driver's blood, the accident 
     reconstructionist did not believe it was a significant 
     contributing factor to the crash. Guerrero was charged and 
     plead guilty to two counts of involuntary manslaughter, with 
     no sentencing agreement. The guideline calculation resulted 
     in a total offense level 13, with acceptance of 
     responsibility, or a sentencing range of only 12-18 months. 
     Only because of Guerrero's prior criminal history did he 
     receive a sentence of concurrent terms of 37 months, the high 
     end of the applicable guideline range.
       In November 2001, Ernest Zahony was driving eastbound on 
     hwy 160 near the Old Red Lake Trading Post on the Navajo 
     Indian Reservation. He crossed the center line and struck a 
     family headed westbound on their way to a late Thanksgiving 
     dinner. The driver was pinned behind the steering wheel and 
     later died as a result of her injuries. Five other occupants, 
     including children, received serious injuries. The 
     defendant walked away from the scene and was found about a 
     mile away. The defendant admitted to drinking all night 
     and into the morning. At the time of the crash, he is 
     estimated to have had a .252 blood alcohol level. The 
     court, applying an upward departure, sentenced the 
     defendant to 40 months in custody.
       Victim families routinely hear or read about state drunk-
     driving homicide cases where long sentences are imposed by 
     state court judges. Without exception, every Assistant U.S. 
     Attorney and Victim Advocate assigned to federal drunk 
     driving homicides must go through the painful process of 
     explaining to victim families that the long sentences meted 
     out in the state court system do not apply because the 
     defendant will be sentenced under the federal sentencing 
     guideline scheme. Victim families cannot comprehend that had 
     the crime occurred in state jurisdiction, the defendant would 
     be imprisoned for a substantially longer term.
       To illustrate this, in Arizona state court, the crime of 
     manslaughter is designated either ``dangerous'' or ``non-
     dangerous.'' [Footnote: Case illustrations were provided by 
     the Arizona Chapter of MADD. Explanation of state sentencing 
     categories were provided by the Maricopa County Attorney's 
     Office.] In Maricopa County, DUI homicides are almost 
     exclusively charged as ``dangerous'' felonies. [Footnote: 
     According to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, ``non-
     dangerous'' felonies are reserved for those DUI homicides 
     with great evidentiary weaknesses and are rarely, if ever, 
     charged.] The sentence for manslaughter ``dangerous'' ranges 
     from seven to 21 years in custody and yields a presumptive 
     10\1/2\ year sentence.
       For example, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office stated 
     that generally, where an intoxicated defendant crosses a 
     center line striking and killing someone, he/she will almost 
     assuredly receive a sentence of 10\1/2\ years. If the 
     individual has a prior drunk driving history, the range of 
     sentence increases by 2 years. In cases where a passenger in 
     a defendant's car is killed, the

[[Page S4741]]

     range of sentence generally is 7-10\1/2\ years in custody.
       Compare Arizona v. Bruguier with United States v. 
     Lomatuwayma. In Bruguier, the defendant was sentenced to 
     11\1/2\ years for driving while intoxicated and striking and 
     killing an individual who was jogging along a roadway.
       Ironically, if any of the victims in the above-mentioned 
     cases were injured, rather than killed, each defendant would 
     have been sentenced under the assault statute, resulting in 
     much harsher penalties. [Footnote: Similarly, the statutory 
     maximum for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Assault 
     Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury is no more than 10 years 
     and a $250,000 fine. 18 U.S.C.Sec. 113. The Base Offense 
     Level is 15 and allows for specific offense characteristics 
     which may result in a substantially higher sentencing range.] 
     To address the low statutory and guideline penalty for 
     involuntary manslaughter cases, my office applies alternative 
     or additional charges in appropriate cases such as assault or 
     second degree murder. This approach enhances the penalties 
     available to the court. Also, the added charges will 
     hopefully deter the defendant from future conduct, and 
     provide a means to advocate on behalf of the surviving 
     victims.
       For example, Sebastian Lopez plead guilty to Second Degree 
     Murder for committing a DUI homicide and was sentenced to 
     11\1/2\ years in custody. At the time of this offense, Lopez 
     was serving a sentence of federal probation for a prior DUI 
     homicide. In total, this defendant had four prior DUI 
     convictions, three involving accidents and one involving 
     death, yet he remained undeterred by his first DUI homicide 
     crime and federal sentence.
       Additionally, federal prosecutors routinely seek upward 
     departures to increase a drunk driving defendant's final 
     adjusted sentence. However, courts are reluctant to impose 
     upward departures in manslaughter cases. In United States v. 
     Merrival, 176 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 1999), a case prosecuted by 
     the District of South Dakota, the defendant was charged with 
     one count of Involuntary Manslaughter for the DUI homicide of 
     his two passengers, which included a 5-month-old infant. The 
     defendant plead guilty to the indictment and the district 
     court departed upward to sentence him to 70 months in 
     custody. In imposing sentence, the court stated that the 
     defendant's conduct was extremely dangerous and resulted in 
     two deaths and severe bodily injury to the three surviving 
     victims. In upholding the sentence, the Eighth Circuit stated 
     ``[w]e make special note, however, that in imposing a 
     departure of this magnitude, the district court acted at the 
     outermost limits of its discretionary authority.'' Id. at 
     1082. Consequently, federal courts themselves appear to 
     struggle with finding a just sentence for these crimes and 
     remain reluctant to impose an upward departure even in the 
     most egregious cases.
       Additionally, if a defendant's tribal criminal history 
     reflects repeated criminal conduct while they are under the 
     influence of alcohol, a prosecutor may seek an enhanced 
     sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 4A1.3, Adequacy of 
     Criminal History. [Footnote: This section may only be applied 
     where a defendant's prior sentence(s) are not factored into 
     his sentencing guideline range. 4A1.3(a).] However, federal 
     court judges are reluctant to apply an upward departure even 
     where a defendant has prior multiple tribal court DUI 
     convictions. Recently, Dale Haskan received a 14 month 
     sentence for the DUI homicide of a 15-year-old girl. Haskan 
     had multiple prior DUIs in tribal court dating back 20 years. 
     The district court ruled that only one of his prior 
     convictions was admissible because of inadequate 
     documentation and his concern whether Haskan was represented 
     in tribal court on those multiple convictions.
       Depending on the extent and substance of a defendant's 
     tribal criminal history, the facts, and the character of the 
     victim, a court may make legal and factual findings that the 
     defendant is entitled to an enhancement. See United States v. 
     Betti Rowbal, 105 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. Nev.) (Unpublished 
     Decision). In drunk driving homicides, however, it is hard 
     for a prosecutor to argue that the Sentencing Commission did 
     not take into account the loss of life or the degree of a 
     defendant's intoxication. Id. Therefore, sentencing 
     enhancements in these cases, although routinely sought, are 
     difficult to substantiate and thus are rarely imposed. It is 
     my hope that these examples will serve to illustrate the dire 
     need for immediate improvements to the manslaughter statutory 
     penalty and sentencing guidelines.
       I would like to briefly address second degree murder. As 
     you consider addressing manslaughter, I urge the Commission 
     to reexamine the murder sentencing guidelines in relationship 
     to the statutory maximum penalty, life imprisonment. The 
     Commission must evaluate whether the 33 base offense level is 
     appropriate given that second degree murder involves a high 
     level of culpability on the part of the defendant. [Footnote: 
     With a Criminal History of I and a 3-level adjustment for 
     Acceptance of Responsibility, a defendant would face an 
     adjusted offense level of 30 (97-121 months in custody).] For 
     example, Douglas Tree plead guilty to Second Degree Murder 
     for beating his girlfriend's 18 month old daughter. Her 
     injuries included a fractured clavicle and fractured ribs. He 
     waited until his girlfriend came home to take the child in 
     for medical treatment. The infant was hospitalized, placed on 
     life support and later died. Tree received a 142 month 
     sentence. Leslie Vanwinkle was also charged with Second 
     Degree Murder for the beating death of his 70-year-old 
     father. Vanwinkle was sentenced to a term of 151 months in 
     custody. These crimes are among the most malicious and often 
     occur with weapons including knives, rocks and shovels. The 
     use of a firearm gives prosecutors the leverage of charging a 
     gun violation, which drastically enhances the second degree 
     murder sentence.
       Finally, should the Commission increase the manslaughter 
     sentencing guideline, it must evaluate the impact that the 
     existing second degree murder guideline will have relative to 
     any increase. I therefore encourage the Commission to 
     consider creating specific offense characteristics that 
     reflect the more egregious and aggravated type of murder.
       The frustration felt by the victim families, prosecutors, 
     and often expressed by district court judges in imposing 
     sentences is all to common in my district and experienced by 
     every federal prosecutor with similar federal criminal 
     jurisdictional responsibilities. So, I am thankful and 
     encouraged that this Commission continues to have an interest 
     in this area. I am also encouraged that the Commission 
     developed the Native American Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to 
     more thoroughly review the perceptions of Indian Country 
     Crimes and Sentencing disparity. My colleagues and I on the 
     Attorney General's Native American Issues Advisory Committee 
     look forward to the Committee's findings. Thank you again for 
     extending to me the invitation to speak to you today.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues 
in coming to agreement to proceed to final passage of this important 
legislation.
  This bill has been a top priority of the Federal judiciary. I 
introduce it back in January, and it proceeded through regular order. 
We held a hearing, issued a committee report, considered floor 
amendments, and debated the measure.
  Now it is time to vote for its passage. We can and we must provide 
for increased security for our Federal judges.
  Physical attacks on our judges threaten not only the dedicated public 
servants who serve in these roles but also the institution. Our 
Nation's Founders knew that without an independent judiciary to protect 
individual rights from the political branches of Government, those 
rights and privileges would not be preserved. Our Federal courts are 
the ultimate check and balance in our system of government.
  We owe it to our judges to better protect them and their families 
from violence to ensure that they have the peace of mind to do their 
vital and difficult jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it 
pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: 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 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 135 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas

[[Page S4742]]


     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Inouye
     Johnson
     McCain
  The bill (S. 378), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                 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 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 the United States Tax 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, when requested by the chief judge of the 
     Tax Court, for the security of the Tax Court, including the 
     personal protection of Tax Court judges, court officers, 
     witnesses, and other threatened persons in the interests of 
     justice, where criminal intimidation impedes on the 
     functioning of the judicial process or any other official 
     proceeding.''.
       (c) Reimbursement.--The United States Tax Court shall 
     reimburse the United States Marshals Service for protection 
     provided under the amendments made by this section.

     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. 119. 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:

``119. 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)--

[[Page S4743]]

       (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:

     ``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

[[Page S4744]]

     section 24(a) of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin 
     Islands (48 U.S.C. 1614(a)),''.
       (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 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 magistrate judges, rulemaking, 
     governance, and administrative matters.''.

     SEC. 504. SENIOR JUDGE PARTICIPATION IN THE SELECTION OF 
                   MAGISTRATE JUDGES.

       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. 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''.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________