[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 127 (Friday, August 3, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Page S10887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the first actions I took this year
was to reintroduce the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, S. 378,
on January 24, 2007. This bipartisan bill has a dozen cosponsors here
in the Senate. In February we held a Judiciary Committee hearing at
which we heard from Justice Anthony Kennedy. In March the Judiciary
Committee considered and then reported the bill by unanimous consent.
I thank the majority leader and the assistant majority leader for
their interest in these matters. Each has witnessed violence against
judges in their home States. With their leadership, in April the Senate
was called upon to consider the measure. I was amazed when it took a
cloture motion to proceed to consideration of court security. Cloture
on the motion to proceed was obtained by a vote of 93 to 3. Thereafter,
this important measure was considered and passed by the Senate on April
19 by a unanimous vote of 97 to 0. Not a single Senator voted against
it, not even those Senators who objected to proceeding to the bill
initially or the three Senators who voted against cloture on the motion
to proceed.
A companion bill was considered by the House of Representatives and
passed on a voice vote. To resolve the remaining difference between the
Senate-passed measure and the House-passed measure we sought to
substitute the Senate-passed text into the House bill and to request a
House-Senate conference. This is hardly a novel procedure. It is a
standard way to resolve differences and to complete action on
legislation. This routine request has cleared the Democratic side of
the aisle here in the Senate. No Democratic Senator has objected to
proceeding. But, once again, an anonymous objection on the Republican
side is thwarting progress. Just as Republican Senators objected to
proceeding to consider legislation to bolster court security in April,
now, an anonymous Republican objection is preventing the Senate from
acting, requesting a conference and moving forward to resolve the
differences and enact this long overdue legislation. Despite the broad
bipartisan support for both the Senate bill and for the House bill, we
are being blocked from going to conference to resolve the minor
differences between them by an anonymous Republican Senator.
This obstruction delays the useful provisions in these bills and
threatens important safety measures for our Federal judges and their
families. For our justice system to function, our judges must be able
to dispense justice. They and their families must be free from the fear
of retaliation. Witnesses who come forward must be protected, and the
courthouses where our laws are enforced must be secure. We are in
danger of letting this chance to improve the security of our Federal
courts slip through our fingers. I am disappointed and troubled that we
will not be improving the security for our Federal judges and
courthouses around the Nation before we go into recess.
I hope that the Republican Senator who has placed this anonymous
objection would remove it, to let us go to conference, and to let us
improve the security that our Federal courts need.
____________________