[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25003-25005]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 1968. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect 
judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their family members, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Court 
Security Improvement Act of 2005. This bill is in direct response to 
the tragic events that occurred in Chicago on February 28, 2005. On 
that day, the husband and aged mother of Judge Joan Lefkow were shot 
and killed in their own home. The perpetrator, as described by Judge 
Lefkow, was an angry litigant. These attacks on Federal judges are not 
as isolated as one might think. Federal judges receive on average 700 
inappropriate communications or threats each year, and three Federal 
judges have been assassinated in the last 25 years.
  Shortly after the Lefkow murders, on March 14, 2005, I wrote to the 
Director of the United States Marshals Service to find out what 
security measures were in place and what additional measures could be 
instituted, particularly off-site security measures, following this 
terrible tragedy.
  On March 14, 2005, Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella 
responded on behalf of the U.S. Marshals Service, stating that Attorney 
General Gonzales and Director Reyna are reviewing all aspects of 
judicial security, both at judicial facilities and off-site, but no 
specifics were offered, and no specifics have yet to be received.
  On April 5, 2005, the Judicial Conference of the United States wrote 
to the President about the issue. Stating that ``attacks such as these 
strike at the core of our system of government,'' the Judicial 
Conference asked that immediate actions be taken to improve judicial 
security, particularly outside of the courthouse. On May 6, 2005, I met 
with Third Circuit Judge Jane Roth, who chairs the Committee on 
Facilities and Securities for the Judicial Conference, to discuss 
security issues.
  Congress quickly responded and passed the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami 
Relief, which was enacted on May 11, 2005. The Act provided $11.9 
million to the U.S. Marshals Service for ``increased judicial security 
outside of courthouse facilities, including priority consideration of 
home detection systems in the homes of Federal judges,'' and as a 
result home intrusion detection systems will soon be available to every 
Federal judge who wants one. But we must do more.
  On May 18, 2005, I chaired a full Judiciary Committee hearing 
entitled ``Protecting the Judiciary at Home and in the Courthouse'' and 
it is evident from this hearing that much more needs to be done in the 
area of judicial security. The responsibility of protecting our Federal 
judiciary and the halls of justice rests primarily with the U.S. 
Marshals Service, but we heard compelling testimony that coordination 
and cooperation is sorely lacking between the Federal judiciary and the 
agency principally charged with its protection.
  Not only does the U.S. Marshals Service arrogantly fail to coordinate 
and cooperate with the Federal judiciary, serious questions were raised 
regarding the efficacy of its existing security programs. For example, 
a report issued by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice 
in March 2004 found that the U.S. Marshals Service's threat assessments 
are ``untimely and of questionable validity,'' and that the U.S. 
Marshals Service has ``limited capability to collect and share 
intelligence, and lacks adequate standards for determining appropriate 
protective measures.''
  This legislation would enhance judicial security in several respects. 
The legislation would statutorily require the U.S. Marshals Service to 
cooperate

[[Page 25004]]

and coordinate with the Judicial Conference regarding judicial security 
on a continuing basis. The legislation also would provide new criminal 
sanctions on individuals who harass or intimidate judges either by 
filing false or malicious liens against judges or by knowingly posting 
personal information regarding Federal judges on the Internet with the 
intent that such information be used to harm them. The legislation 
would extend the Judicial Conference's authority to redact sensitive 
personal information from judges' financial disclosure forms so that 
such information cannot be used for harassment or intimidation 
purposes.
  The rampage in Atlanta reminds us that the issue of judicial security 
is no less of a compelling problem for State and local courts, where 
approximately 32,000 State and local court judges sit compared to 
approximately 2,400 Federal judges. This legislation would address 
these State and local issues by authorizing grants for court security 
and witness protection.
  In conclusion, there is no doubt that the rule of law is the backbone 
of our civilized society. The ability of the judiciary to determine the 
rule of law without fear or favor is an indispensable prerequisite to 
our democratic society. Our judges' personal security, along with 
judicial independence, must be safeguarded at all costs, and I believe 
this bill is an important step toward providing those safeguards.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last May, the Judiciary Committee heard the 
courageous testimony of Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago. She is the 
Federal judge whose mother and husband were murdered in their home. The 
tragedy that befell Judge Lefkow and her family is a terrible reminder 
not only of the vulnerable position of our judges and their families, 
but of the critical importance of protecting judges where they work and 
where they and their families live. We cannot tolerate and no one 
should excuse or justify--violence or the threat of violence against 
our judges. I was appalled earlier this year when right-wing activists 
compared judges to terrorists and the KKK and threatened them with 
punishment for decisions they did not like, even quoting Joseph 
Stalin's violent answer to anyone who opposed his totalitarianism by 
urging the formula of ``No man, No problem.'' Stalin killed those with 
whom he disagreed. This rhetoric can only foster unacceptable violence 
against Judges and it must stop, for the sake of our Judges and the 
independence of the judiciary. We ought to be protecting judges 
physically and institutionally rather than taking rhetorical pot shots 
that put judges in real danger and that attack the very independence of 
our federal judiciary.
  When I chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2001, one of the first 
things I did was push for passage of the Judicial Protection Act, which 
toughened criminal penalties for assaults against judges and their 
families. We enacted it. We were right to do so. Protecting our judges 
and Federal law enforcement officers should be a top priority for us.
  Today, in order to meet the continuing challenges of keeping our 
judges, our Courts, and the rest of the Federal judiciary safe, 
Chairman Specter and I are introducing the Court Security Improvement 
Act of 2005 (``CSIA''). CSIA responds to requests by the judiciary for 
a greater voice in working with the United States Marshals Service to 
determine their security needs. It strengthens and expands protections 
for judges and their families against the misuse of their personal 
information by those who intend to threaten them. It enacts new 
criminal penalties for the mis-use of restricted personal information 
to seriously harm or threaten to seriously harm judges, their families 
or other individuals performing official duties. It also enacts 
criminal penalties for threatening judges and federal law enforcement 
officials by the malicious filing of false liens, provides increased 
protections for witnesses, and makes available new resources for state 
courts to improve security for state and local court systems.
  I appreciate the work of Chairman Specter on this important bill and, 
in particular, for including an extension of life insurance benefits to 
bankruptcy, magistrate and territorial judges, as well as health 
insurance for surviving spouses and families of federal judges.
  We must better protect the dedicated women and men throughout the 
Judiciary in this country who do a tremendous job under challenging 
circumstances. They are hard-working public servants who are too often 
maligned and unfairly disparaged. We owe it to them and to our 
democracy to find ways to make sure that tragedies like those that 
befell Judge Lefkow are not repeated, and to ensure that Judges and 
their families have the peace of mind necessary to do their vital and 
difficult jobs.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
Court Security Improvement Act of 2005, of which I am an original 
cosponsor. I want to commend Senator Specter and the other cosponsors 
of this bill for tackling the critical issue of judicial and courthouse 
security.
  Our democracy depends on the dedication of public servants, including 
the men and women of the judiciary--from the trial courts to the 
appellate courts--who daily preside over important and difficult 
issues. They faithfully carry out their duties and diligently work to 
support the administration of justice. We must do all that we can to 
provide adequate security to these dedicated men and women who 
sometimes are targeted for violence or harassment because of the 
position they hold.
  Unfortunately, episodes of courthouse violence in this country are on 
the rise, including in my home State of Texas. I was a judge for 13 
years and have a number of close personal friends who still serve on 
the bench today. I am outraged by acts of courthouse violence. I 
personally know judges and their families who have been victims of 
violence, and I have grieved with those families.
  Acts of violence against judges are unacceptable and reflect a 
distortion of the role of the judiciary. Judges are impartial umpires 
of the law--they simply call the balls and strikes--and they cannot 
help but disappoint people. However, it is unacceptable for judges, 
courthouse personnel or other law enforcement officials to face threats 
and violence for doing nothing more than faithfully carrying out their 
professional duties.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee has examined issues related to 
courthouse security at a recent hearing. At this hearing, the Judicial 
Conference raised several important issues, including its working 
relationship with the United States Marshals Service, the need to 
protect judges outside of the courthouse, and common instances of 
intimidation and harassment directed at judges.
  This hearing and these issues provide the foundation for this bill. 
Let me discuss a few of the security improvements made by this bill.
  The U.S. Marshals Service has primary responsibility for providing 
security to the judiciary. However, the Judicial Conference testified 
that they are not consulted when decisions, which directly implicate 
their security, are made. The Marshal's Service should willingly 
coordinate and communicate with the judiciary on security concerns. 
This legislation would codify this commonsense idea and keep the 
judiciary informed of, and allow them to provide suggestions for, 
decisions regarding their security.
  This bill also addresses a relatively recent problem that poses a 
particular danger to public officials. Personal information, such as 
home addresses and phone numbers, of Federal officials when posted on 
the Internet can be readily accessed and used to intimidate or harm 
them. Recently, personal information of Federal judges have been posted 
on the Internet and used to facilitate threats against them. This bill 
would punish those who, with the intent to harm, post restricted 
information of public officials, or of their immediate family, on the 
Internet.
  Additionally, members of the Federal judiciary have been targets of 
intimidation or harassment by some who file false liens against the 
real or personal

[[Page 25005]]

property of a judge who has presided over a criminal or civil case, or 
who has otherwise acted against the interests of a litigant. This 
provision would make it a crime to knowingly file a false lien against 
the property of a Federal judge or law enforcement officer on the basis 
of their official status.
  Finally, and importantly, this bill authorizes Federal grants to be 
made available to State courts to improve security for State and local 
court systems. We must comprehensively approach this problem by 
providing funding to State courts to update their security while 
standing by to swiftly and severely punish those who cause or attempt 
to cause harm to anyone within the courts.
  It is important for us to do all we can to protect the men and women 
who make up our judicial system because they are essential to the 
proper administration of justice. I urge my colleagues to support this 
measure.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 972. A bill to require Members of Congress and legislative branch 
employees to report all contact with officials and representatives of 
countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism; to the Committee 
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks about a 
bill I introduced earlier today, the Terrorist Lobby Disclosure Act of 
2005.
  My legislation is simple, straightforward and necessary. Because the 
United States is actively involved in the global war on terror, we must 
be vigilant in fighting this war on all fronts. This means supplying 
our men and women of the Armed Forces with equipment and materiel to 
conduct military operations. It means providing our intelligence 
community with the resources it needs to make inroads against terrorist 
organizations and to better safeguard Americans against nations and 
groups that hate our way of life. It means devoting the time and 
resources to ensure the safety of our borders, ports and airports. 
Finally, it means providing transparency in dealing with those nations 
defined by our government as ``state sponsors of terrorism.''
  According to the Department of State, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North 
Korea, and Sudan are the six governments that the U.S. Secretary of 
State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. 
These are governments that engage directly in terrorist activity 
themselves; support terrorist groups by providing funding, arms, or 
other material support; or provide training, logistical support, 
sanctuary, or diplomatic facilities. These states are the worst of the 
worst when it comes to fighting the global war on terror.
  My bill requires Members of Congress and employees of the legislative 
branch to disclose, on a quarterly basis, any contacts with 
representatives or officials of governments that have been designated 
as state sponsors of international terrorism. The contacts must be 
reported to the U.S. Department of State, Secretary of the Senate, and 
Clerk of the House of Representatives. My bill makes sure that the 
congressional committees of oversight are also duly informed of these 
contacts. Let me be clear, my bill does not prohibit these contacts. 
Rather, with men and women serving in harm's way in the global war on 
terror, it simply requires disclosure and transparency in the conduct 
of their official duties.
  As we commit final resources and valuable human capital to prosecute 
the global war on terror, we ought to know if members of our own 
government are meeting with individuals who are representatives of 
terrorist nations. The American people deserve to know if there are 
contacts happening with representatives of these regimes--regimes that 
are actively opposed to America.

                          ____________________