[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 89 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H6775-H6776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 COURT SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2661) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
increase the penalty for violations of section 119 (relating to 
protection of individuals performing certain official duties), as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2661

       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 Enhancement 
     Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE OF PENALTY.

       Section 119(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``10 years''.

     SEC. 3. RESOLVING A WORKLOAD REQUIREMENT FOR SENIOR JUDGE 
                   PARTICIPATION IN COURT GOVERNANCE.

       Section 631(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``(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)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2661, the Court Security Enhancement Act, addresses 
improper public disclosure of private information regarding all Federal 
employees, Federal officers, and persons involved in the judicial 
system. Specifically, this bill addresses the public disclosure of 
private information with the intent to threaten, intimidate or incite 
violence against a Federal employee or officer, a person involved in 
the judicial system, or his or her family.
  The safety of all who participate in our judicial process is 
essential to the integrity of our judicial system. Threats and attacks 
against citizens and court officials are also attacks on the fair and 
effective administration of justice.
  It is already a felony to knowingly disclose with harmful intent 
restricted personal information, including a Federal employee's home 
address, home phone number or Social Security number. However, the 
maximum penalty is currently 5 years. This bill will increase that 
penalty to 10 years.
  The United States Sentencing Commission has brought to our attention 
the disparity between the 5-year penalty for this crime and the 10-year 
penalty for another serious form of harassment and attack on Federal 
employees, that of filing false liens against the Federal employee.
  The Sentencing Commission has asked whether or not we intended that 
disparity. We did not. To reduce the disparity and to bring the penalty 
for disclosing private information with a criminal intent in line with 
the seriousness of the offense, the Court Security Enhancement Act 
increases the penalty from 5 to 10 years.
  This bill also corrects a conflict we inadvertently created last 
session in sections 503 and 504 of the Court Security Improvement Act 
of 2007. This bill eliminates that conflict and clarifies that senior 
judges must perform at least the equivalent of a 6-month workload of an 
active judge to participate in court governance matters, including the 
selection of magistrate judges.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and thank 
the gentleman from Texas for introducing the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  On January 7th of last year, President Bush did sign into law a 
critical piece of legislation, the Court Security Improvement Act. I 
was pleased to join Chairman Conyers and Chairman Scott as an original 
cosponsor of the bill.
  This bipartisan, bicameral effort improves security for Federal 
judges, their staffs, victims, witnesses, and all those who participate 
in our Federal justice system. I had the honor and privilege to sit 
down with a number of judges and witnesses and victims and staff 
members to discuss this problem back before the legislation was 
originated and we were trying to address some of the problems that had 
been created.
  In recent years, we have seen an increase in violence and threats 
against judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, law enforcement officers, 
and courthouse employees. According to the Administrative Office of the 
U.S. Courts, almost 700 threats a year are made against Federal judges. 
In numerous cases, it has been necessary to assign Federal judges 
security details for fear of attack by criminal defendants and 
disgruntled litigants.
  We now have in place procedures to improve coordination between U.S. 
marshals and the Federal judiciary and strengthen security measures for 
Federal prosecutors handling dangerous trials against terrorists and 
drug organizations, as well as organized crime figures.
  The law now also prohibits public disclosure on the Internet or other 
public sources of personal information about judges, law enforcement 
officers, victims and witnesses, and also protects Federal judges and 
prosecutors from organized efforts to harass and intimidate them 
through false filings of liens or other encumbrances against their 
personal property.
  I introduced H.R. 2661, the Court Security Enhancement Act, to make 
two important corrections to the court security statutes. At the 
recommendation of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the bill does 
increase, as my colleague from Virginia mentioned, the penalty for 
violations of section 119 of title 18 from a maximum of 5 to a maximum 
of 10 years.
  This action prohibits the public disclosure of certain personal 
information of Federal judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, jurors, 
witnesses, or the family members of these individuals. This 
commonsense, straightforward change will conform the penalties for 
section 119 offenses to the penalties of the other comparable court 
security provisions.
  At the recommendation of the U.S. Judicial Conference, the bill also 
eliminates an inconsistency unintentionally created by the Court 
Security Improvement Act pertaining to requirements for senior district 
court judge participation in court governance. This simple amendment 
will ensure consistent application of the statutes governing senior 
district court judges.
  I do want to thank Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott and Ranking 
Member Smith for their support and prompt consideration of the bill. It 
is imperative we continue to work together in a bipartisan effort to 
ensure that judges, witnesses, courthouse personnel, and law 
enforcement officers do not face threats and violence while carrying 
out their duties, and, if there is, that there are serious 
consequences.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

[[Page H6776]]

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 2661, the ``Court Security Enhancement Act of 2009.'' I would 
like to thank my colleague Representative Louie Gohmert for introducing 
this important piece of legislation, as well as the cosponsors.
  I stand in support of this legislation because it adds a simple 
amendment to title 18 of the United States Code, which will make a huge 
impact on the protection and safety of individuals performing certain 
official duties in the courts. This amendment will prohibit the public 
disclosure of certain personal information of federal judges, 
prosecutors, defense counsel, witnesses, or family members of these 
individuals. The bill will also clarify and eliminate an inconsistency 
that was unintentionally created by the Court Security Improvement Act, 
which pertained to the requirements for a Senior District Court Judge's 
participation in court governance. But most importantly this amendment 
will increase the penalty for those who violate Section 119(a) of title 
18, from a maximum of five years to a maximum of ten years.
  As a lawyer and a former county Magistrate Judge, as well as a 
Georgia State Court Judge, I hold this bill very dear to my heart. 
There is no time more important than the present, especially 
considering the recent hate crimes, like the shooting at the Holocaust 
Museum, that have occurred throughout the country. The United States 
Judiciary System stands to seek justice for all, so those who are 
opposed to equality for all Americans usually take their anger and hate 
out on innocent people. Therefore, it is only fair that there be 
maximum protection yielded to those who devote their careers to 
preserving and enforcing the founding principles of our forefathers.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2661, the ``Court Security Enhancement Act of 2009.'' This 
legislation will go a long way toward enhancing the security and 
integrity of our judicial system and the able men and women who 
comprise the federal judiciary.
  Mr. Speaker, let me quote the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme 
Court: ``Our democracy and the rule of law depend upon safe and secure 
courthouses.'' That is because an independent judiciary is essential 
for a regime based on the rule of law. Nothing can do more to undermine 
the independence of the judiciary than the very real threat of physical 
harm to members of the judiciary or their families to intimidate or 
retaliate. In 1979, U.S. District Court Judge John Wood, Jr., was 
fatally shot outside of his home by assassin Charles Harrelson. The 
murder contract had been placed by Texas drug lord Jamiel Chagra, who 
was awaiting trial before the judge.
  In 1988, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Daronco was murdered at 
his house by Charles Koster, the father of the unsuccessful plaintiff 
in a discrimination case. The following year, U.S. Circuit Court Judge 
Richard Vance was killed by a letter bomb sent to his home. The letter 
bomb was attributed to racist animus against Judge Vance for writing an 
opinion reversing a lower-court ruling to lift an 18-year desegregation 
order from the Duval County, Florida, schools.
  In this age of the global war on terror, the danger faced by federal 
judges, judicial officers, and court personnel is real, as illustrated 
by the three murders noted above. The recent and tragic murder of U.S. 
District Court Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow's husband and mother reminds 
us that the danger has not abated.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2661 increases the penalty of violating Section 
119(a) of title 18, United States Code to 10 years instead of 5 years. 
The original bill states that it is a crime to publish on the Internet 
restricted personal information concerning judges, law enforcement, 
public safety officers, jurors, witnesses or other officers in any 
United States Court. The penalty for a violation was a maximum term of 
imprisonment of 5 years. However, H.R. 2661 will make this maximum term 
of imprisonment 10 years.
  Additionally, the original bill increases the maximum penalty for 
killing or attempting to kill a witness, victim or informant to 
obstruct justice or in retaliation for their testifying or providing 
information to law enforcement by increasing maximum penalties.
  The original Act provides a three-pronged legislative response to the 
security challenges facing our judicial institutions and personnel. 
First, it directs the United States Marshals Service to consult with 
the Judicial Conference regarding the security requirements for the 
judicial branch, in order to improve the implementation of security 
measures needed to protect judges, court employees, law enforcement 
officers, jurors and other members of the public who are regularly in 
federal courthouses.
  The original bill also extends authority to redact information 
relating to family members from a federal judge's disclosure statements 
required by the Ethics in Government Act and removes the sunset 
provision from the redaction authority, thus making the redaction 
authority permanent.
  Mr. Speaker, the original bill also enhanced the security and 
protection of judicial personnel and their families by making it a 
criminal offense to maliciously record a fictitious lien against a 
federal judge or federal law enforcement officer. This new crime and 
punishment is intended to deter individuals from attempting to 
intimidate and harass federal judges and employees by filing false 
liens against their real and personal property.
  All in all, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a substantial contribution 
to the enhancement of security of judicial institutions and personnel 
by increasing the penalty for violators of this Act. I urge all members 
to join me in supporting this beneficial legislation.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for introducing the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2661, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend title 18, 
United States Code, to increase the penalty for violations of section 
119 (relating to protection of individuals performing certain official 
duties), and for other purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________