[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 26]
[Senate]
[Pages 34619-34620]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007

  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 660, and the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 660) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their 
     family members, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at the very beginning of this Congress, one 
of the very first actions I took was to re-introduce the Court Security 
Improvement Act of 2007, along with Senators Reid, Specter, Durbin, 
Cornyn, Kennedy, Hatch, Schumer and Collins. The Judiciary Committee 
considered this important legislation, and recommended it to the full 
Senate. When Majority Leader Reid wanted to move to consider it, he 
could not get a time agreement. We were forced to dedicate almost a 
week of precious floor time to overcome a Republican objection, just to 
proceed to debate on the bill. Eventually, the measure passed by a 97 
to 0 vote. Not a single Senator voted against it. A short time later, a 
nearly identical bill passed the House by a voice vote. Despite the 
broad bipartisan support for both bills, however, we were blocked from 
going to conference to resolve the minor differences between them by an 
anonymous hold placed by a Republican Senator. For months, we 
negotiated the minor differences between the House and Senate versions 
of this legislation.
  When we are responding to attacks and threats on our Federal judges, 
witnesses and officers, time is of the essence. Just last month in 
Nevada, a man admitted to shooting and injuring the family court judge 
who was presiding over his divorce. This type of violence against our 
judiciary can and must be prevented. For our justice system to function 
effectively, our judges and other court personnel must be safe and 
secure. They and their families must be free from the fear of 
retaliation and harassment. Witnesses who come forward must be 
protected, and the courthouses where our laws are enforced must be 
secure. Today, almost eleven months after introducing this legislation, 
we may actually reach consent to pass a compromise version that will 
pass the House and be sent to the President.
  We must act now to get these protections in place and stop delaying 
such protective measures by anonymous holds. I urge Senators to take up 
and pass this compromise version of the Court Security Improvement Act 
so that we can provide the necessary protections that our Federal 
courts so desperately need. The security of our Federal judges and our 
courthouses around the Nation is at stake.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on H.R. 660, the 
Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. Section 509 of the final 
substitute transfers one seat from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit. The reasons for this change are explained in Senator 
Feinstein's and my additional views in S. Rept. 110-42.

[[Page 34620]]

  Section 102 of the bill authorizes the U.S. Marshals Service to 
provide protection to the U.S. Tax Court, and stipulates that the 
Marshals Service retains final authority regarding the Tax Court's 
security needs. The Tax Court has expressed concern to me and to other 
Members that the Marshals Service should consult with the Tax Court 
about the costs that it expects to incur for providing security--costs 
that will be charged to the Tax Court. The Marshals Service has assured 
Congress that it will consult with the Tax Court on these matters and 
that it will not surprise the Tax Court with charges that the court may 
have difficulty paying. Rather than include heavy-handed consultation 
requirements in the text of the legislation, we have agreed to adopt 
the bill in its current form on the strength of these assurances.
  Section 202 of the bill makes it an offense to disseminate sensitive 
personal information about Federal police officers and criminal 
informants and witnesses. The final version extends this offense to 
also protect State law enforcement officers, but only to the extent 
that their participation in Federal activities creates a Federal 
interest sufficient to maintain this provision's consistency with 
principles of federalism.
  Section 207 increases statutory maximum penalties for manslaughter 
under section 1112 of title 18. I expect the U.S. Sentencing Commission 
to revise its guidelines for these offenses in light of these new 
higher statutory maxima. I commented on the need for these changes when 
the Senate version of this bill passed the Senate earlier this year and 
would refer interested parties to those remarks and especially to Paul 
Charlton's testimony, at 153 Cong. Rec. S4739-4741, daily ed. April 19, 
2007.
  Section 208 increases the penalties for retaliatory assaults against 
Federal judges' family members. This provision also clarifies an 
assault offense that was created by Congress in 1994. The offense 
establishes penalties for simple assault, assault with bodily injury, 
and for assault in ``all other cases.'' As one might imagine, the 
meaning of assault in ``all other cases'' has been the subject of 
confusion and judicial debate. The offense has also been the subject of 
constant vagueness challenges, and although those legal challenges have 
been rejected, the offense is rather vague. Section 208 takes the 
opportunity to correct this legislative sin, codifying what I believe 
is the most thoughtful explanation of what this language means, the 
10th Circuit's decision in United States v. Hathaway, 318 F.3d 1001, 
1008-09, 10th Cir. 2003. A conforming change has also been made to 
section Ill of title 18, so that sections 111 and 115 will match each 
other and, again, so that people can easily figure out what this 
offense actually proscribes.
  Section 503 of the bill guarantees that senior district judges may 
elect to participate in court rulemaking, appointment of magistrates 
and court officers, and other administrative matters, so long as such 
judges carry at least half of the caseload of an active district judge. 
I believe that this provision is a bad idea, though its negative 
consequences have been greatly mitigated in this final substitute as a 
result of the intervention of Senator Sessions. Many senior judges are 
often not present at the courthouse and are disengaged from the work of 
the court and the life of the court. Moreover, Congress has no business 
telling the courts how to manage these types of internal organizational 
matters. Those jurists who share my objection to this provision should 
be grateful to Senator Sessions, who insisted that the provision be 
limited to district judges as opposed to circuit judges, that a senior 
judge be required to elect to exercise these functions, and that a 
senior judge carry at least half of a full caseload in order to be 
entitled to assume these powers.
  Finally, section 511 adds nomenclature to section 2255 of title 28, a 
change recommended to me by Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice 
Legal Foundation. This change has no substantive effect but should make 
this code section easier for litigants to cite.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that a Leahy substitute amendment 
at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time 
and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3868) was agreed to.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill read a third 
time.
  The bill (H.R. 660), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________