[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18735-18736]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




AUTHORIZING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT POLICE TO PROTECT OFFICIALS

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 6855) to extend the authority for the United States 
Supreme Court Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court 
grounds, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6855

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES 
                   SUPREME COURT POLICE TO PROTECT COURT OFFICIALS 
                   OFF THE SUPREME COURT GROUNDS, AND FOR OTHER 
                   PURPOSES.

       Section 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2013''.

     SEC. 2. CHANGING THE TITLE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO 
                   THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

       Title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 133(b)(2), by striking ``administrative 
     assistant'' and inserting ``Counselor'';
       (2) in paragraphs (1)(E) and (2)(E) of section 376(a), by 
     striking ``an administrative assistant'' and inserting ``a 
     Counselor'';
       (3) in section 677--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Administrative 
     Assistant'' and inserting ``Counselor'';
       (B) in the text, by striking ``Administrative Assistant'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``Counselor'';
       (C) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``an'' and inserting ``a''; and
       (4) in the item relating to section 677 in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 45, by striking 
     ``Administrative Assistant'' and inserting ``Counselor''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6855 extends for 5 years existing authority for the 
Supreme Court Police to protect the

[[Page 18736]]

Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Court, as well as officers 
and employees of the Supreme Court who are performing official duties 
while they are away from the grounds of the Supreme Court building.
  When the Supreme Court first moved to its own building just over 70 
years ago, we sent them a small contingent of Capitol Police officers 
commissioned as ``special policemen'' for the protection of the Court. 
It wasn't until 1982 that Congress provided the force with statutory 
recognition as the Supreme Court Police. That statute also gave them 
authority to patrol the Supreme Court buildings and grounds, make 
arrests, carry firearms, and protect the Chief Justice and any 
Associate Justices, official guests, and employees of the Court while 
performing official duties.
  In that statute, the Congress also expanded the Supreme Court Police 
force's authority in a way very similar to what we had granted the 
Capitol Police the previous year. In 1981, we authorized the Capitol 
Police to provide protection to individual Members and officers of 
Congress, as well as their families, on or off the Capitol grounds. 
Likewise, in 1982 we authorized the Supreme Court Police to protect the 
Justices and the employees of the court while they're away from the 
court building anywhere in the United States.
  When we first gave this authority to the Supreme Court Police in 
1982, it was subject to a 3-year sunset provision. Since then, we have 
extended this authority 7 times, and this bill will continue that 
tradition.
  In the 26 years since this authority was first granted, threats to 
all three branches, from terrorists and others who want to disrupt our 
government, have only increased. That is why it is imperative that we 
should not allow the authority of the Supreme Court Police to sunset at 
the end of this year.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation so that the Supreme 
Court Police can continue to perform their critical mission 
effectively.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague in urging support for 
this legislation.
  The Supreme Court is an independent branch of government needing to 
have the exact same level and should, to be honest, without any need 
for extension should, on a permanent basis, have a recognized ability 
to protect itself.
  We view ourselves as independent, and we have the Capitol Police. 
Certainly the executive branch views itself as independent and has both 
the Secret Service and, of course, the Army, the Navy, and the Marines, 
and so on.
  So I certainly believe that this is important for us to do today to 
extend the authority of the United States Supreme Court Police. But I 
would happily work with my colleague on the other side of the aisle to 
recognize that in fact this is a permanent need, and although we would 
have to fund it on an annual basis as we do the Secret Service, the 
Army, the Navy, the Marines, and so on, that we should never let the 
Supreme Court have any doubt but that its independence, its autonomy, 
its ability to do its constitutional duty without any question, but 
that they and those who they need to protect along with them would be 
protected, we should do that through a funding mechanism and never 
again need to do what we're doing here today. Having said that, this is 
a body that takes what it gets and does what it can with what it gets.
  Today we're considering an extension. I move with my colleague on the 
other side to do that, and I urge all of my colleagues to pass this. I 
believe this is going to be passed unanimously today. But long before 
2013, we should, in fact, make this a permanent authorization.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time and am prepared to close if the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to work with 
the gentleman to make it permanent. But this is what we have at this 
point for 3 years. So I would hope we pass this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. 
R. 6855, a bill to extend the authority for the United States Supreme 
Court Police to protect Court officials off the Supreme Court grounds. 
This important bill is sponsored by my colleague on the Judiciary 
Committee, Mr. Smith. In order to get unbiased, thoughtful rulings on 
important cases, it is necessary the officials who preside over these 
cases can walk the streets unburdened with the fear that their 
interpretations and decisions will lead to them facing harm on their 
way home. It is time to protect our court officials so they can carry 
out their important work.
  This bill will protect the Members of the Court. Currently, Justices 
do not receive any protection when they are off the Court grounds. 
Unlike cabinet secretaries and governors who receive protection from 
the Marshall Service, Justices are forced to remain unprotected. They 
are open up to being attacked and injured or worse. We must protect 
them as they are just as important to our democracy as our President 
and Members of Congress.
  Four years ago, Supreme Court Justice David Souter, while jogging 
near his home in Southwest Washington DC, was assaulted by two young 
men. He was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and thankfully 
was released a few hours later. While this attack was deemed by the 
police as only a random assault, and that robbery was not the motive, 
this should serve as a wake up call for us all. The Supreme Court, like 
the Office of the President, is more important than the person serving 
in the position. Protecting these people, is not just about protecting 
the person, it is about protecting the sanctity of the Court and the 
decisions they render. This legislation will assure the choices that 
the Justices make comes from a place of righteousness and not 
intimidation.
  The noted philosopher and English Parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, 
said, ``Good order is the foundation of all things.'' Members of the 
Court have an important responsibility to maintain order in government. 
They were chosen to provide clarity when questions arose on the rights 
that were promised to us by the Founding Fathers.
  This bill does something fundamental for the American way of life, it 
protects it. The legacy of all those who came before us depends on 
making sure that those who come after can do the job duty requires. 
Nothing is more fundamentally American than protecting those who 
protect our rights. It is in this function, that we know when it is our 
turn to serve; we can do so without undue fear.
  Without the venerable work of the members of the Court and the myriad 
of landmark cases that they decided, the country would have a markedly 
different look, far from what we see today.
  Police officers could walk around searching anyone they choose; 
personal privacy would be a dream and not a reality. Miranda v. Arizona 
would have never given us the right to remain silent, or the right to 
talk to a lawyer.
  But for the case of Brown v. the Board of Education, many Americans 
would not be able to take part in integrated schools and would face 
lower quality of education.
  But for the Court, many African American voters would not be able to 
take part in a historic vote this November.
  To be sure, our Nation would look very different if it was not for 
the Court. Since its creation in the Constitution, they have been a 
vital partner in the fight for civil rights, women's rights and the 
rights of all people across the country.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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. 6855.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________