[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[House]
[Page 21894]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   SUPREME COURT SECURITY ACT OF 2000

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 5136) to make permanent the authority of the 
Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police to provide 
security beyond the Supreme Court building and grounds.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5136

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

     SECTION 1. MAKING PERMANENT CERTAIN POLICING AUTHORITY.

       (a) Elimination of Sunset Provision and Reporting 
     Requirement.--Section 9 of the Act entitled ``An Act relating 
     to the policing of the building and grounds of the Supreme 
     Court of the United States'', approved August 18, 1949 (40 
     U.S.C. 13n), is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 9 of such Act is further 
     amended in subsection (b) by striking ``are hereby 
     authorized'' and inserting ``is authorized''.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5136.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5136, a bill to make permanent 
the authority of the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court 
Police to provide security beyond the Supreme Court building and 
grounds. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime, introduced H.R. 5136 at the request of the Chief 
Justice of the United States. It was reported by voice vote from the 
Committee on the Judiciary on September 20.
  The Supreme Court Police is charged with enforcing the law at the 
Supreme Court building and its grounds, as well as protecting Justices 
and other Court employees off grounds. This authority rests in the 
United States Code.
  Since 1982, Congress has provided statutory authority for the Supreme 
Court Police to provide security beyond the Court building and grounds 
for Justices, Court employees, and official visitors. This authority 
requires that the Supreme Court annually report to Congress on the cost 
of such security, and it also contains a sunset clause that would cause 
this authority to lapse if not renewed.
  Since 1986, Congress has extended this off-grounds authority four 
times, but this authority will automatically terminate on December 29, 
2000.
  The current authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Police 
are essential to the force's performance of everyday duties. Today the 
Supreme Court Police regularly provides security to Justices by 
transporting and accompanying them to official functions in the 
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and occasionally outside it when 
they or official guests of the Court are traveling on court business.
  Some Justices, because of threats to their personal safety, are 
driven by the police to and from their homes and the Court every day. 
Additionally, the police protect Court employees going to and from its 
parking lot, which is located one half block east of the Supreme Court 
building and off the ground of the Court.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and I believe that the 
Supreme Court Police should continue to provide off-ground security to 
protect the Justices and guests of the Court. Given the fact that the 
Court's police force is well trained and has an excellent performance 
record, I think it appropriate that we respond in the affirmative to 
the Chief Justice's request and make the authority to provide off-
ground security permanent.
  H.R. 5136 would also eliminate the Court's annual reporting 
requirement to Congress detailing the administrative cost associated 
with such protection. This cost has been very modest in the past and is 
fully detailed each year in the court's annual budget request to 
Congress.
  Finally, H.R. 5136 would also repeal the ministerial requirement that 
the Chief Justice authorize in writing armed protection for official 
guests of the Supreme Court when they are traveling in the United 
States but outside of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important 
and very reasonable legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as indicated by my colleague, this bill will make 
permanent the authority of the United States Supreme Court Police to 
provide security for its Justices, Court employees and official 
visitors on and off the Supreme Court grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court 
Police department was first authorized by Congress to carry firearms 
and protect Court personnel outside the Supreme Court grounds in 1982, 
and the statutory authority was scheduled to terminate, but Congress 
has extended such authorization and has done so five additional times. 
The last extension occurred in October 1996. It is set to expire 
December 29, 2000.

                              {time}  1615

  It is clear that the security concerns that gave rise to the original 
authorization, including threats of violence against the Justices and 
the Court, will continue for the foreseeable future.
  In addition, I am not aware of any suggestion that they have misused 
that authority, nor should they not be entitled to such authority on a 
permanent basis. In fact, the evidence suggests that the Department has 
discharged its responsibilities in an efficient and cost-effective 
manner.
  For example, the cost of the program has been minimal. The Supreme 
Court police worked closely with the U.S. Marshal's office to provide 
security for Supreme Court Justices when they travel outside the 
Washington, D.C. area. Over the past 4 years, there were 74 requests 
for that kind of protection beyond the D.C. metropolitan area at a 
total cost of approximately $17,000, a little more than $4,000 per 
year.
  In light of the continuing security concerns and the Supreme Court 
police's record of providing appropriate protection over the past 18 
years for the Justices, court employees, and official visitors, I 
support making permanent the Supreme Court police's authority to 
provide security on and off Supreme Court grounds.
  As a result, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5136.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________