[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 213 (Wednesday, December 16, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7524-S7527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Charles Edward Atchley, 
Jr., of Tennessee, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern 
District of Tennessee.

[[Page S7525]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from New Jersey.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4711

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor today and will 
soon ask unanimous consent for the passage of the Daniel Anderl 
Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2020. This legislation is about 
standing up for the independence of our Federal judiciary and the 
safety of all of those who serve it.
  Many of you already know the terrible tragedy that recently struck 
Federal District Judge Esther Salas and her family in New Jersey. This 
summer, an unhinged and violent individual showed up at Judge Salas's 
home, impersonating a package delivery driver. When her 20-year-old son 
Daniel Anderl answered the door, the assailant opened fire, taking the 
life of her only child and seriously wounding her husband Mark Anderl.
  Unfortunately, this tragedy is not the first attack on a Federal 
judge. There was the 1979 murder of Judge John Wood in San Antonio, TX; 
the 1988 murder of Judge Richard Daronco in Pelham, NY; the 1989 murder 
of Judge Robert Vance in Mountain Brook, AL; the 2005 murder of the 
husband and mother of Judge Joan Lefkow in Illinois.
  And there have been other attacks as well. In June, 2013, Chief Judge 
Timothy Corrigan was targeted by a gunman who purchased the address of 
his Florida home on the internet for a mere $1.95--$1.95. The gunshot 
missed his ear by less than 2 inches.
  Just last month, a judge's address was circulated on social media, 
urging people to gather outside his home while the judge was hearing a 
high-profile case.
  According to the U.S. Marshals Service, threats against Federal 
judges rose by 500 percent between fiscal years 2015 and 2019. This 
trend should worry all of us who care about our Constitution. An 
independent judiciary in which judges can render decisions without fear 
of retribution and violence is essential to the integrity of our 
democracy.
  Indeed, the idea that any judge at any level of government could be 
intimidated undermines the very concept of the rule of law. We expect 
all Americans to have respect for the rule of law, even when they 
disagree with the outcome of a case or a particular ruling. 
Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
  Some individuals delude themselves into believing that violence is 
the answer. We may not be able to eliminate hatred from someone's 
heart, but what we can do is make sure that the men and women who serve 
on our Federal bench do not make for such easy targets. That is why, 
after Daniel's murder, I made a personal commitment to Judge Salas. I 
told her that I would develop legislation, along with my colleague 
Senator Booker, to better protect the men and women who sit on our 
Federal judiciary, to ensure their independence in the face of 
increased personal threats on judges, and to help prevent this 
unthinkable tragedy--unthinkable tragedy--from ever happening again to 
anyone else.
  The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2020 is a 
bipartisan, bicameral, and commonsense plan to safeguard the personal 
information of Federal judges and their families. And I want to thank 
my colleague Senator Booker, who has been there every step of the way, 
a member of the Judiciary, and Chairman Graham--Senator Lindsey 
Graham--for leading this effort with me.
  Our legislation makes it unlawful for data brokers to knowingly sell, 
trade, license, purchase, or otherwise provide personally identifiable 
information of a Federal judge or their family.
  Since its introduction, we have worked with several stakeholders, 
including the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the U.S. 
Marshals Office, the American Civil Liberties Union, among others. 
Together, we carefully updated legislative language in order to uphold 
the First Amendment right of the press to report on matters of public 
concern and balance that right with our urgent need to better protect 
the safety of Federal judges and their families.
  Federal judges and their families will continue to be able to seek 
relief through the courts for the knowing and willful publication of 
their personal information, and the party responsible for the violation 
will have to pay the cost and reasonable attorney's fees.
  The bill enjoys widespread support among judicial and attorney 
organizations, including the National Association of Attorneys General, 
the National Judicial Conference, the Federal Judges Association, the 
National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, the American Bar Association, 
the National Hispanic Bar Association, the National Bar Association, 
and several others.
  America's Federal judges must be able to render rulings without 
fearing for their lives or the lives of their loved ones. We must 
better protect Federal judges' personal information from those who 
would seek to do them harm. That is exactly what the Daniel Anderl 
Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2020 will do. This legislation 
will not bring Judge Salas's son back. But we must ensure, as Judge 
Salas said, that his death not be in vain.
  As she recently wrote in the New York Times, ``Daniel's death is 
speaking to us, but will we listen? For the sake of my brothers and 
sisters on the bench, Congress must act now. Every day that goes by 
without action leaves our federal judges, our justice system and our 
very democracy in danger.''
  We must protect the independence of our courts, the safety of our 
judges, and prevent this sort of tragedy from ever happening again. 
This is a commonsense bill. It will save lives, and I urge my 
colleagues to approve it without delay.
  Before I ask for consent, I want to turn to my distinguished 
colleague, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Cory Booker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of 
my senior Senator's unanimous consent request to pass the Daniel Anderl 
Judicial Security and Privacy Act.
  As Senator Menendez pointed out, this is a bipartisan piece of 
legislation. It is bicameral. It will take important steps to safeguard 
the personally identifiable information of Federal judges and their 
family members from individuals who wish to do them harm.
  As Senator Menendez said, it is named after Daniel Anderl, the son of 
Judge Esther Salas and Mark Anderl, who was senselessly murdered in 
July of this year by a hate-filled gunman. The gunman was able to 
access personal information, as Senator Menendez said, by going to 
Judge Salas's information, getting it--including where she lived, the 
routes she took to work, and even her place of worship and her home 
address. As a result, Judge Salas and her husband have gone through 
something that no parent ever, ever should have to go through.
  No person who takes on the responsibility of serving as a Federal 
judge should ever have to live in fear that they or their family could 
be targeted by someone wishing to do them harm, who is able to easily 
access their personal information. Passing this bill today in memory 
and in honor of Daniel Anderl will mark a commitment of this body to 
safeguarding the privacy and security of our Federal judges and their 
families so that we can make sure we are doing everything in our power 
to prevent this from happening to another family.
  Our bill, as Senator Menendez said, has broad support. It has been 
endorsed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Federal 
Judges Association, the Federal Magistrate Judges Association, the 
National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, the Federal Bar Association, 
the National Association of Attorneys Generals, and others--people from 
all backgrounds, people from both parties, Independents. We have a 
unanimous chorus of support of people who believe that this is justice 
and will help keep judges safe.
  James C. Duff, the Administrative Director of the U.S. Courts, said 
in his statement of support of this bill: ``It is crucial in our system 
of justice that judges can decide cases without fear for their safety 
and that of their family.'' He is absolutely right.
  I echo Senator Menendez's request to pass the Daniel Anderl Judicial 
Security and Privacy Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 4711 and the Senate

[[Page S7526]]

proceed to its immediate consideration; further that the Menendez 
substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the 
bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I agree 
that members of the judicial branch need better protection. In fact, I 
have been active in this issue for the last couple of years, and each 
time this has come forward, at the end of the year, with very little 
time to do the normal process, I have advocated that an amendment be 
added that would include protection of Members of Congress. I really 
think that it is important that we protect addresses for our judges, 
but it is also important that we do this for our elected officials.
  In recent years, what has happened has taught us that the legislative 
branch needs better protection as well. That was clear in 2011, when 
Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was tragically shot while doing the most 
important part of the job--meeting with constituents.
  Words cannot express how happy and inspiring it was to see 
Congresswoman Giffords here in the Chamber as her husband, Senator 
Kelly, was recently sworn in as a Member of the body. But words also 
cannot express the pain felt by the family of the people who were 
killed and wounded that day. That should have been a wakeup call to 
better protect Members of Congress and, in doing so, better protect the 
people around them.
  But just a few years later, a shooter nearly killed Congressman   
Steve Scalise during baseball practice for the annual charity baseball 
game. I was there, and I said at the time that our lives were saved by 
the Capitol Hill police. Had they not been there, things might have 
gone much worse.
  But the Capitol Hill police are not stationed at our homes where our 
families live while we serve in Washington. Extending the provision of 
this bill to the Members of Congress would better protect all of us--
our families, our neighbors, and our constituents.
  It is a very minor request that I am asking. It is an amendment that 
would not change anything or lessen anything about the bill. It is a 
very reasonable request, and I don't understand exactly why we can't 
make this bill better by applying it to both judges and Members of 
Congress.
  My substitute amendment, which I will offer for unanimous consent, 
will make simple changes to the legislation. It would extend the same 
protections it would offer to the judicial branch to the legislative 
branch.
  Second, the laudable goal of this legislation is to protect 
personally identifiable information from being sold and posted online 
by data brokers. Allowing at-risk individuals to file private action 
against data brokers for declaratory and injunctive relief, plus 
reasonable attorney's fees, will achieve that goal.
  I ask the Senator to modify his request to, instead, include my 
substitute amendment at the desk, and that my substitute amendment be 
considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a 
third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object to the modification, I 
appreciate the Senator's concern to expand the universe of people 
covered by this bill, including Members of Congress. While that is a 
laudable goal, I personally think it would be more appropriate to 
legislate that in another bill.
  This bill is for the Federal judiciary because of the special threats 
they face and the importance of ensuring their independence in terms of 
being able to make judgments based on the law and the facts, not upon 
some fear that lurks outside of their home or outside of their 
chambers.
  I also understand that the amendment would strip out--and if I am 
wrong, I would be happy to be corrected--would strip out the ability to 
seek redressing the court as it relates to the provision that we 
provide for judges. Without a threat of some damages, there is little 
incentive for a data broker to remove the personal identifiable 
information of a judge and his or her family. This is not about 
frivolous suits. This is about protecting the Federal judiciary.
  In addition to that, we had made several good-faith efforts before we 
got to this point to address the concerns of my colleagues across the 
aisle. We actually had the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 
engage in conversations directly with our colleagues.
  My colleagues had concerns about a new grant program to States. Well, 
we changed that language to a report. Senator Lee was part of those 
concerns. To better understand the proper Federal role, we changed it 
to a report.
  They don't want to deal with some of the questions that we had for 
the U.S. marshals. Again, this is about protecting the Federal 
judiciary. Guess what branch protects the Federal judiciary. The U.S. 
marshals. We changed that.
  It never seems to be enough. It never seems to be enough. It is 
unfortunate that the Federal judiciary will pay the price of this 
recalcitrance, but I cannot, at this time, agree to the modification. 
Therefore, I object to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, I would like to offer across 
the aisle that we are willing to compromise with the Senator from New 
Jersey. We are willing to work with him on getting the bill passed. The 
only thing that we would like to do is to have it include Congress, as 
well.
  The other points you had mentioned that you object to, as far as 
changing, I would be willing to discuss. I think there would be a 
middle ground.
  I think this could be passed. When we pass something unanimously, 
there has to be a little give and take. No one gets their way. I am not 
saying that you can't have it. I am for your bill in general.
  I think it ought to be expanded to Congress. We had at least two 
people shot. Gabby Giffords was shot. We had   Steve Scalise shot. We 
had other threats. Congress is threatened and families are frightened.
  I don't know about you, but, routinely, the sheriff and police have 
to come to our house for threats to my house. I am not alone. This 
happens to other people. There is no reason why we should do this only 
for one branch of government. They put the satellite picture of my 
House on the nightly news, basically pointing out where every crazy 
person in the world can go to find my house.
  We do need to do something. This isn't a new request. I requested 
this a year ago when a very similar bill came up a year ago for special 
protections for the judiciary. I said, once again: Good idea, we should 
apply it to Congress.
  We go forward a whole year, and now we are doing the same thing 
again, and nobody seems to be listening.
  I will tell you that I am willing to compromise on this and willing 
to work with you to pass it, but I think we should extend it. It is not 
that hard. If we extend it to Congress and flip it back, then, I think 
it would pass unanimously in the House, as well. But I object to this 
version.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I just say to my colleague that I 
certainly am concerned about his safety and security and, for that 
fact, the safety and security of all of our colleagues. I appreciate 
his concern and understand it and look forward to working with him on 
that.
  I will say that the other elements that Senator Lee had incorporated 
into his amendment just renders the security--whether for a Member of 
Congress or for the judiciary--useless, in which case, I don't want to 
give false security to anybody that they are being protected if, in 
fact, they don't have the wherewithal to do so.
  I look forward to that opportunity.
  I promised Judge Salas that her son's death will not be in vain. We 
may not have achieved this tonight with Senator Booker, but we are 
going to make this happen, hopefully, sooner rather than later. But we 
will make this happen.

[[Page S7527]]

  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.