[Senate Report 110-42]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 107
110th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 110-042
======================================================================
THE COURT SECURITY ACT OF 2007
_______
March 29, 2007.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Leahy, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, submits the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 378]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the
bill (S. 378) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect
judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their family
members, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that
the bill (as amended) do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007............1
II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration..................2
III. Section by Section Summary of the Bill...........................3
IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................4
V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation.....................................9
VI. Additional Views................................................10
VII. Changes to existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........12
VIII.Conclusion......................................................21
I. Purpose of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007
The February 2005 murder of the mother and husband of Judge
Joan Lefkow of Chicago in her home provided a tragic reminder
of the threats faced by federal judges and their families. That
tragedy lent an increased urgency to efforts to enhance
judicial security. The shooting last summer of a State judge in
Nevada provided another terrible reminder of the vulnerable
position of the Nation's state and federal judges. The Court
Security Improvement Act of 2007 arose not only from concerns
about violence and the threat of violence for the men and women
of the federal judiciary, but also for the independence of the
judiciary.
Our Nation's founders knew that without an independent
judiciary to protect individual rights from the political
branches of government, those rights and privileges would not
be preserved. The courts are the ultimate check and balance in
our system of government in times of heated political rhetoric.
This bill helps ensure that the dedicated women and men of our
judiciary have the resources, security, and independence
necessary to fulfill their crucial responsibilities. Our
independent judiciary is the envy of the world, and we must
take care to protect it.
II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration
A. HEARINGS
1. May 18, 2005
After the murder of Judge Lefkow's mother and husband, the
Judiciary Committee held a hearing on May 18, 2005, entitled
``Protecting the Judiciary at Home and in the Courthouse.''
Judge Lefkow was the key witness at this hearing, occurring
less than two months after the tragedy. Other witnesses
included: Judge Samuel Alba, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the
District of Utah; Benigno Reyna, Director of the U.S. Marshals
Service; Judge Jane Roth of the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Chair of the Committee on Security and Facilities of
the Judicial Conference of the United States; and Kim Widup,
U.S. Marshal, Northern District of Illinois. Senator Barack
Obama also attended the hearing. The hearing focused on
judicial security away from the courthouse, questions about
whether the judges have a sufficient voice in their protection,
the resources needed by the U.S. Marshals, and the danger of
irresponsible rhetoric used to attack judicial decisions and
the judiciary.
2. February 14, 2007
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was the sole
witness at the Judiciary Committee's February 14, 2007 hearing
on ``Judicial Security and Independence.'' The topic of the
hearing was the varied threats to judges' independence, from
threats to physical and institutional security to those posed
by inadequate compensation. Justice Kennedy's testimony was a
reminder of the need to provide resources and protections
crucial to the preservation of the independence of our federal
judiciary so that it can continue to serve as a bulwark,
protecting individual rights and liberty.
B. LEGISLATION
The Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 is a bipartisan
measure introduced on January 24, 2007, by Chairman Leahy,
Senator Specter, the Majority Leader, Senator Durbin, Senator
Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, Senator Schumer, and
Senator Collins. Senator Cardin also joined the bill as a co-
sponsor. House Judiciary Chairman Conyers introduced an
identical measure on January 24, 2007, also with bipartisan
support.
The Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 is a bipartisan
bill that builds on work begun with the introduction of S. 1968
by Senators Specter and Leahy in the 109th Congress. The core
provisions of S. 1968 passed the Senate twice, first as an
amendment to a Department of Defense measure. Then, a few
months later, the court security legislation passed by
unanimous consent as a substitute amendment offered by Senators
Specter and Leahy to H.R. 1751, but was not taken up and passed
by the House. This bill responds to the needs expressed by the
federal judiciary for a greater voice in working with the U.S.
Marshals Service to determine security needs. It would enact
new criminal penalties for the protections of judges, their
families, and others performing official duties; expand
resources available to state courts for their security; and
provide additional protections for law enforcement officers.
Included are provisions that have passed the Senate several
times extending andexpanding to family members the authority of
the Judicial Conference of the United States to redact certain
information from a federal judge's mandatory financial disclosure for
security purposes. This expired redaction authority was used in
circumstances in which the release of the information could endanger
the filer.
The bill was listed on the Judiciary Committee's agenda for
the first time on February 15, 2007. During Committee debate
over the bill on March 1, Senator Brownback offered an
amendment to make permanent a temporary judgeship in Kansas and
Senator Kyl offered an amendment, co- sponsored by Senator
Feinstein, to reduce by one the number of judgeships in the
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and increase by one the
number of judgeships in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. Senator Brownback withdrew his amendment after the
Chairman objected and committed to working to address Kansas'
federal judgeship requirements this Congress in a judgeship
bill. The Chairman objected to Senator Kyl's amendment because
it was an inappropriate place to consider the creation of new
judgeships. The Chairman suggested that such measures should be
considered as part of a comprehensive bill that would address
judicial needs nationwide. Senator Kyl's amendment was adopted
over the Chairman's objection. By unanimous consent, the
Committee ordered S. 378 to be reported favorably.
III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill
Title I--Judicial Security Improvements and Funding
Section 101: This section enhances the ability of the
Judicial Conference of the United States to participate in
determining the security needs of the judicial branch by
requiring the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to
consult with the Judicial Conference on an ongoing basis
regarding the security requirements of the judicial branch.
Section 102: This section provides the Judicial Conference
express authority to grant redactions of statutorily required
information from federal judges' financial disclosure reports
to include redaction of information concerning family members
of covered individuals.
Section 103: This section extends the authority of the
Judicial Conference to grant redactions of statutorily required
information from federal judges' financial disclosure reports
until 2009 and adds information to be reported. This provision
reestablishes and extends for four years the ``sunset clause''
in the section that grants the Judicial Conference of the
United States authority to redact information from a judge's
mandatory financial disclosure in circumstances in which it is
determined that the release of the information could endanger
the filer or the filer's family. The Judicial Conference's
authority to do so expired at the end of 2005.
Section 104: This section authorizes the USMS to provide
for the security of the Tax Court where criminal intimidation
impedes the functioning of the judicial process or other
official proceeding.
Section 105: This section authorizes an additional
$20,000,000 for the USMS to protect the judiciary. This new
funding is specified to be used for: (1) hiring entry-level
deputy marshals for providing judicial security, which would
increase staffing levels of the USMS tasked with providing
security for judges; (2) hiring senior-level deputy marshals
for investigating threats to the judiciary and providing
protective details to members of the judiciary and assistant
U.S. attorneys, which would help staff the kinds of off-site
security that has garnered more attention since the Lefkow
tragedy, and (3) hiring senior-level deputy marshals, program
analysts and secure computer systems, which would help to
improve the threat assessment capabilities of the USMS.
Title II--Criminal Law Enhancements To Protect Judges, Family Members
and Witnesses
Section 201: This section creates a federal criminal
offense with a maximum penalty of a fine, imprisonment for not
more than 10 years, or both, for whoever files, conspires to
file or attempts to file a false lien or encumbrance against
the real or personal property of a federal employee, on account
of the performance of official duties, knowing or having reason
to know that such lien or encumbrance is false or contains any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement.
Section 202: This section creates a federal criminal
offense to knowingly make restricted personal information about
a covered official or a family member of that covered official
publicly available (1) with the intent to threaten, intimidate,
or incite the commission of a crime of violence against that
covered official or a member of his family; or (2) with the
intent and knowledge that such restricted personal information
be used to threaten to commit a crime of violence against,
facilitate a crime of violence against or intimidate that
covered official or a member of the immediate family of that
covered official. The offense provides a maximum penalty of a
fine, imprisonment of not more than five years, or both.
Section 203: This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 930(e) of
the United States Code, regarding the offense of knowingly
carrying or causing to be present a firearm in a federal court
facility, or attempting to do so, by expanding it to include
other dangerous weapons in addition to firearms.
Section 204: This section clarifies that a prosecution
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513 for retaliation against a witness may
be brought in the district in which the official proceeding
intended to be affected was, regardless of whether the original
action was pending, about to be instituted or was completed, or
in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged
offense occurred.
Section 205: This section increases statutory maximums
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 for tampering with a witness, victim,
or an informant.
Section 206: This section increases statutory maximums
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513 for retaliating against a witness,
victim, or an informant.
Section 207: This section increases statutory maximums
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1112(b) for manslaughter from 10 to 20
years for voluntary manslaughter and from 6 to 10 years for
involuntary manslaughter.
Title III--Protecting State and Local Judges and Related Grant Programs
Section 301: This section amends Sec. 31702 of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
Sec. 13862) to expand the permissible uses of Community-Based
Justice Grants to state,Indian tribal, or local governments to
include the creation and expansion of witness protection programs and
authorizes $20,000,000 annually through 2010 for this purpose.
Section 302: This section would make state and local courts
eligible for correctional options grants and armored vest
grants.
Title IV--Law Enforcement Officers
Section 401: This section directs the Attorney General to
submit to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees a report on
the security of assistant U.S. attorneys and other federal
attorneys arising from the prosecution of terrorists, violent
criminal gangs, drug traffickers, white supremacists, and those
who commit fraud and other white collar offenses.
Title V--Miscellaneous
Section 501: This section permits the U.S. Sentencing
Commission to enter into multi-year contracts for acquisition
of goods and services, or contracts that span more than one
year, to the same extent as executive agencies and to make
advance, partial, progress, or other payments for property or
services to the same extent as executive agencies.
Section 502: This section enables bankruptcy, magistrate,
and territorial court judges to receive the same life insurance
benefits that are provided to all Article III judges and
Article I judges of the Court of Federal Claims.
Section 503: This section amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 296 to
expressly grant a senior judge designated to the court on which
he traditionally sat all the powers of a judge or justice of
that court, including participation in the appointment of court
officers and magistrates, rulemaking, governance and
administrative matters.
Section 504: This section permits a senior judge designated
and assigned to the court to which he was appointed the power
to participate in the selection of magistrates.
Section 505: This section reauthorizes the Office of
Government Ethics until 2011.
Section 506: This section, adopted in Committee by an
amendment offered by Senator Kyl, reduces the number of
judgeships in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 12
to 11 and increases the number of judgeships in the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 28 to 29.
IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
The Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, S. 378,
the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director
of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 23, 2007.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 378, the Court
Security Improvement Act of 2007.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Daniel
Hoople.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag,
Director.
Enclosure.
S. 378--Court Security Improvement Act of 2007
Summary: S. 378 would authorize the appropriation of $160
million over the 2008-2011 period to provide additional staff
to the U.S. Marshals Service and to provide grants to state and
local governments to improve court security and protect victims
and witnesses. Additionally, the bill would reauthorize
operations of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) through
fiscal year 2011. S. 378 also would amend sentencing
requirements for crimes committed against certain federal
employees and their families. Moreover, the bill would renew
provisions of law preventing the release of financial
information if disclosure could endanger federal judges or
their families. CBO estimates that implementing S. 378 would
cost $30 million in 2008 and $179 million over the 2008-2012
period, subject to the appropriation of the authorized and
necessary amounts.
The bill also would direct the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts (AOUSC) to pay increases in the cost of
life insurance premiums that were implemented after 1999 for
certain judges. CBO estimates that enacting this provision
would increase direct spending by about $1 million over the
2008-2017 period. Other provisions would have no significant
impact on direct spending or revenues.
S. 378 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA);
any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would be
included voluntarily as a condition of receiving federal
assistance.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 378 is shown in the following table. The
cost of this legislation falls within budget functions 750
(administration of justice) and 800 (general government).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION \1\
U.S. Marshals Service:
Authorization Level............................................ 20 20 20 20 0
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 18 20 20 20 2
Grants to Witness and Victim Protection Programs:
Authorization Level............................................ 20 20 20 20 0
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 2 8 13 17 12
Office of Government Ethics:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 11 11 12 13 0
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 10 11 12 I3 1
Total Proposed Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 51 51 52 53 0
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 30 39 45 50 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to the amounts shown above, enacting S. 378 also would affect revenues and direct spending. CBO
estimates that any such effects would not significant in any year and would increase direct spending by about
$1 million over the 2008-2017 period.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
bill will be enacted before the end of fiscal year 2007) that
the amounts authorized by the bill will be appropriated for
each year, and that spending will follow historical patterns
for current and similar programs.
Spending subject to appropriation
CBO estimates that implementing S. 378 would cost $179
million over the 2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of
amounts authorized and estimated to be necessary.
U.S. Marshals Service. Section 105 would authorize the
appropriation of $20 million annually over the 2008-2011 period
for the U.S. Marshals Service to provide additional protection
for the judiciary. The agency would use the funds to hire
additional Deputy Marshals, investigators, and intelligence
officers. Assuming appropriation of the specified amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing this provision would cost $18
million in 2008 and $80 million over the 2008-2012 period.
Section 104 would authorize the U.S. Marshals Service to
provide security for the U.S. Tax Court. Under current law,
such protection cannot be provided, although temporary security
has been available upon request. Based on information from the
U.S. Marshals, CBO expects that additional protection provided
to the U.S. Tax Court under this bill would not require a
significant increase in staff. Thus, CBO estimates that
implementing this provision would have no significant cost.
Grants to Witness and Victim Protection Programs and Court
Security. Section 301 would authorize the appropriation of an
additional $20 million annually over the 2008-2011 period to
make Community-Based Justice Grants for Prosecutors. Those
funds would be used to make grants for witness and victim
protection programs. Assuming appropriation of the specified
amounts, CBQ estimates that implementing this provision would
cost $2 million in 2008 and $52 million over the 2008-2012
period.
In addition, section 302 would authorize the Bureau of
Justice Assistance to make grants to improve the security of
state and local courts. The bill would reduce funding for
grants made to programs that offer alternatives to traditional
incarceration by 10 percent to fund this new activity. As such,
CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would have no
net impact on the federal budget.
Office of Government Ethics. Section 505 would reauthorize
the operations of the Office of Government Ethics for fiscal
years 2008 through 2011. The authorization for OGE expired in
2006, but the office received an appropriation of $11 million
in 2007. Based on the fiscal year 2007 appropriation and
assuming adjustments for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates
that implementing this section would cost $10 million in 2008
and $47 million over the 2008-2012 period, assuming the
appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Federal Prison System. Title II would make it a separate
crime to knowingly file a false claim against a federal judge,
law enforcement officer, or family member on account of
performance of duties. It would also make it a crime to make
restricted information about federal judges, officers, jurors,
witnesses, or their families publically available. Under
current law, such actions may be prosecuted under other federal
statutes in certain cases. Title II also would increase the
maximum sentences for certain existing crimes against
witnesses, victims, and informants. CBO estimates that the
longer prison sentences required under the bill would not have
a significant impact on prison populations over the 2008-2012
period, and thus, would not impose any significant costs over
that period.
Other Provisions Affecting Federal Judges. Other sections
would extend provisions of the Ethics in Government Act through
2009 which prevent public access to certain personal financial
information if disclosure could endanger a federal judge or
family member. Based on information from the AOUSC, CBO expects
that the agency would exercise this authority rarely and any
additional reporting requirements would therefore be minimal
and would have no significant cost.
In addition, section 502 would direct the AOUSC to pay for
increases in the cost of Federal Employees' Group Life
Insurance (FEGLI) implemented by the Office of Personnel
Management after April 1999 for magistrates and territorial
district court judges. Such payments are currently made for all
Article III judges as well as judges of the Court of Federal
Claims. Based on information from the AOUSC, CBO estimates that
additional costs related to the payment of FEGLI increases
would have no significant effect on the federal budget.
Direct spending and receipts
S. 378 would subject individuals to penalties for various
crimes against judges, federally funded public safety officers,
and their families. Thus, the federal government might collect
additional fines if the bill is enacted. Collections of
criminal fines are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and
later spent. As such, CBO expects that any additional revenues
and direct spending would not be significant.
In addition, section 502 would direct AOUSC to pay
increases in FEGLI implemented after April 1999 for bankruptcy
judges. Any increase to the salaries and benefits of bankruptcy
judges is considered a change in direct spending, and thus the
additional premium payment for life insurance for bankruptcy
judges would result in an increase in direct spending. Based on
information from AOUSC, CBO estimates that any increase in
direct spending that results from enacting this provision would
be insignificant in any one year and would total about $1
million over the 2008-2017 period.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 378
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. It would authorize the appropriation of $80
million for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for grants to states
to increase security of the court system and make other safety
improvements. Any costs to those governments would be incurred
voluntarily as a condition of receiving federal assistance.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Daniel Hoople and
Matthew Pickford. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal
Governments: Melissa Merrell. Impact on the Private Sector:
Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation
In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, the Committee finds that no significant regulatory
impact will result from the enactment of S. 378.
VI. Additional Views
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS FEINSTEIN AND KYL
Section 506 of this bill transfers a judgeship from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Once this
provision is enacted into law, the Ninth Circuit will have 29
judgeships and the D.C. Circuit will have 11.
Section 506 will help to ease the backlog of pending cases
in the Ninth Circuit, where more judgeships are sorely needed.
At the same time, it will eliminate a judgeship on the D.C.
Circuit that many Senators--including both Democrats and
Republicans on this committee--have indicated that they believe
to be unnecessary.
The numbers tell a striking story. According to the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 107 appeals
per judge were filed in the D.C. Circuit in 2006. By contrast,
in the Ninth Circuit, the filings were nearly five times
higher--a total of 523 filings per judge in 2006. Filings per
judge in the Ninth Circuit are also substantially higher than
the national average of 399 filings per judge. The D.C.
Circuit's rate of filings, by contrast, falls far below the
national average.
The merits of transferring a judgeship from the D.C.
Circuit to the Ninth Circuit are also brought into relief by
considering the total number of appeals left pending in each
circuit at the end of the 2006 reporting cycle. In the Ninth
Circuit, 1,853 appeals were pending at the end of this period.
This was the highest total for any circuit in the nation. By
contrast, in the D.C. Circuit, only 387 appeals were pending at
the end of the 2006 period. This was the lowest total for any
circuit in the nation.
The backlog of cases in the Ninth Circuit is not merely a
problem for lawyers and judges. It injures ordinary people who
have to wait longer to have their cases resolved. Plaintiffs
who have been injured, criminal defendants seeking review of
their convictions, and victims waiting for justice--for all of
these people, justice delayed is justice denied.
It just makes sense to take a judgeship from where it is
needed least, and to transfer it to where it is needed most.
California is hit hardest by the inadequate number of
judgeships on the Ninth Circuit. In 2005, 10,000 federal
appeals--70% of the circuit's total docket--were filed in
California. On February 14, during his testimony before this
Committee, even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
commented on the overloaded docket of the Central District of
California. Yet of the Ninth Circuit's 28 judgeships, only 14
are assigned to California.
California needs more judges. Transferring a judgeship from
the D.C. Circuit to the Ninth Circuit in California would be a
first step toward correcting this deficiency.
The D.C. Circuit, by contrast, has seen its caseload
decline in recent years. In fact, filings in that circuit
dropped by 7.1% in 2006 alone. Removal of the 12th judgeship
would only modestly increase filings per judge in that circuit
to 115--a figure still well below half the national average for
U.S. courts of appeals. And in any event, the burden on that
court of removing a seat is largely hypothetical. The 12th seat
on the D.C. Circuit was created in 1984 and has remained vacant
for most of the intervening years, including all of the last
decade. On the other hand, adding one seat to the Ninth Circuit
would reduce filings per judge on that court to 503--still a
heavy burden on the justice system of the Western States.
Section 506 is a reasonable step toward the solution of a
pressing problem in the administration of United States courts.
We are pleased to see it made part of this bill.
Dianne Feinstein.
Jon Kyl.
VII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
S. 378, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
28 U.S.C. Sec. 566--adding a new subsection
Sec. 566. Powers and duties
(a) It is the primary role and mission of the United States
Marshals Service to provide for the security and to obey,
execute, and enforce all orders of the United States District
Courts, the United States Courts of Appeals [and the Court of
International Trade], the Court of International Trade, and any
other court, as provided by law.
* * * * * * *
(i) The Director of the United States Marshals Service
shall consult with the Judicial Conference of the United States
on a continuing basis regarding the security requirements for
the judicial branch of the United States Government, to ensure
that the views of the Judicial Conference regarding the
security requirements for the judicial branch of the Federal
Government are taken into account when determining staffing
levels, setting priorities for programs regarding judicial
security, and allocating judicial security resources. In this
paragraph, the term `judicial security' includes the security
of buildings housing the judiciary, the personal security of
judicial officers, the assessment of threats made to judicial
officers, and the protection of all other judicial personnel.
The United States Marshals Service retains final authority
regarding security requirements for the judicial branch of the
Federal Government.
28 U.S.C. Sec. 331
Sec. 331. Judicial Conference of the United States
The Chief Justice of the United States shall summon
annually the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the chief
judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge
from each judicial circuit to a conference at such time and
place in the United States as he may designate. He shall
preside at such conference which shall be known as the Judicial
Conference of the United States. Special sessions of the
Conference may be called by the Chief Justice at such times and
places as he may designate.
* * * * * * *
The Judicial Conference shall consult with the Director of
United States Marshals Service on a continuing basis regarding
the security requirements for the judicial branch of the United
States Government, to ensure that the views of the Judicial
Conference regarding the security requirements for the judicial
branch of the Federal Government are taken into account when
determining staffing levels, setting priorities for programs
regarding judicial security, and allocating judicial security
resources. In this paragraph, the term `judicial security'
includes the security of buildings housing the judiciary, the
personal security of judicial officers, the assessment of
threats made to judicial officers, and the protection of all
other judicial personnel. The United States Marshals Service
retains final authority regarding security requirements for the
judicial branch of the Federal Government.
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 Sec. 105
Sec. 105. Custody of and public access to reports
* * * * * * *
(b)(3)(E) This paragraph shall expire on December 31,
[2005] 2009, and apply to filings through calendar year [2005]
2009.
(b)(3)(A) This section does not require the immediate and
unconditional availability of reports filed by an individual
described in section 109(8) or 109(10) of this Act [sections
109(8) or 109(10) of Appendix 4 of this title] if a finding is
made by the Judicial Conference, in consultation with United
States Marshall [sic] Service, that revealing personal and
sensitive information could endanger that individual or a
family member of that individual.
* * * * * * *
(C) The Administrative Office of the United States Courts
shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate an annual report with respect
to the operation of this paragraph including--
(i) the total number of reports redacted pursuant to
this paragraph;
(ii) the total number of individuals whose reports
have been redacted pursuant to this paragraph; [and]
(iii) the types of threats against individuals whose
reports are redacted, if appropriate[.];
(iv) the nature or type of information redacted;
(v) what steps or procedures are in place to ensure
that sufficient information is available to litigants
to determine if there is a conflict of interest;
(vi) principles used to guide implementation of
redaction authority; and
(vii) any public complaints received in regards to
redaction.
Internal Revenue Code of 1986--26 U.S.C. Sec. 7456
Sec. 7456. Administration of oaths and procurement of testimony
(c) Incidental Powers.--The Tax Court and each division
thereof shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at
its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other,
as--
* * * * * * *
(3) disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ,
process, order, rule, decree, or command[.] and may
otherwise provide for the security of the Tax Court,
including the personal protection of Tax Court judges,
court officers, witnesses, and other threatened person
in the interests of justice, where criminal
intimidation impedes on the functioning of the judicial
process or any other official proceeding.
Title 18, Chapter 73--adding a new section
Sec. 1521. Retaliating against a Federal Judge or Federal law
enforcement officer by false claim or slander of
title.
Whoever files, attempts to file, or conspires to file, in
any public record or in any private record which is generally
available to the public, any false lien or encumbrance against
the real or personal property of an individual described in
section 1114, on account of the performance of official duties
by that individual, knowing or having reason to know that such
lien or encumbrance is false or contains any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 10
years, or both.
Title 18, Chapter 7--adding a new section
Sec. 118. Protection of individuals performing certain official duties.
(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly makes restricted
personal information about a covered official, or a member of
the immediate family of that covered official, publicly
available--
(1) with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or
incite the commission of a crime of violence against
that covered official, or a member of the immediate
family of that covered official; or
(2) with the intent and knowledge that the restricted
personal information will be used to threaten,
intimidate, or facilitate the commission of a crime of
violence against that covered official, or a member of
the immediate family of that covered official,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
(b) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``restricted personal information''
means, with respect to an individual, the Social
Security number, the home address, home phone number,
mobile phone number, personal email, or home fax number
of, and identifiable to, that individual;
(2) the term ``covered official'' means--
(A) an individual designated in section 1114;
or
(B) a grand or petit juror, witness, or other
officer in or of, any court of the United
States, or an officer who may be serving at any
examination or other proceeding before any
United States magistrate judge or other
committing magistrate;
(3) the term ``crime of violence'' has the meaning
given the term in section 16; and
(4) the term ``immediate family'' has the meaning
given the term in section 115(c)(2).
18 U.S.C. Sec. 930(e)(1)
Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal
facilities
* * * * * * *
(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever
knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other
dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do
so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2
years, or both.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513--adding a new section
Sec. 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
(a)(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person
with intent to retaliate against any person for--
(A) the attendance of a witness or party at an
official proceeding, or any testimony given or any
record, document, or other object produced by a witness
in an official proceeding; or
(B) providing to a law enforcement officer any
information relating to the commission or possible
commission of a Federal offense or a violation of
conditions of probation, supervised release,[,] parole,
or release pending judicial proceedings,
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (2).
(2) The punishment for an offense under this subsection
is--
(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided
in sections 1111 and 1112; and
(B) in the case of an attempt, imprisonment for not
more than [20 years] 30 years.
(b) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) any information relating to the commission or
possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation
of conditions of probation, supervised release,[,]
parole, or release pending judicial proceedings given
by a person to a law enforcement officer;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than [ten years] 20 years, or both.
[(e)] (f) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under
this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those
prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the
object of the conspiracy.
(g) A prosecution under this section may be brought in the
district in which the official proceeding (whether pending,
about to be instituted, or completed) was intended to be
affected, or in which the conduct constituting the alleged
offense occurred.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512
Sec. 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The punishment for an offense under this
subsection is--
(A) in the case of [murder (as defined in
section 1111), the death penalty or
imprisonment for life, and in the case of any
other killing, the punishment provided in
section 1112;] a killing, the punishment
provided in sections 1111 and 1112;
(B) in the case of--
(ii) the use or attempted use of
physical force against any person;
imprisonment for not more than [20
years] 30 years; and
(C) in the case of the threat of use of
physical force against any person, imprisonment
for not more than [10 years] 20 years.
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or
corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or
engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with
intent to--
* * * * * * *
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
[ten years] 20 years, or both.
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and
thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person
from--
* * * * * * *
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than [one year] 3 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1112
Sec. 1112. Manslaughter
* * * * * * *
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than [ten years] 20
years, or both;
Whoever is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than [six years]
10 years, or both.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994--42 U.S.C.
Sec. 13862
Sec. 13862. Use of funds
Grants made by the Attorney General under this section
shall be used--
* * * * * * *
(3) to fund programs that coordinate criminal justice
resources with educational, social service, and
community resources to develop and deliver violence
prevention programs, including mediation and other
conflict resolution methods, treatment, counseling,
educational, and recreational programs that create
alternatives to criminal activity; [and]
(4) in rural States (as defined in section 3796bb(b)
of this title), to fund cooperative efforts between
State and local prosecutors, victim advocacy and
assistance groups, social and community service
providers, and law enforcement agencies to investigate
and prosecute child abuse cases, treat youthful victims
of child abuse, and work in cooperation with the
community to develop education and prevention
strategies directed toward the issues with which such
entities are concerned[.];and
(5) by a State, unit of local government, or Indian
tribe to create and expand witness and victim
protection programs to prevent threats, intimidation,
and retaliation against victims of, and witnesses to,
violent crimes.
42 U.S.C. Sec. 13867
[Sec. 13867. Authorization of Appropriations
[There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part--
[(1) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
[(2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
[(3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
[(4) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
[(5) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.]
SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to carry out this
subtitle.
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968--42 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 3762a & 3762b
Sec. 3762a. Correctional options grants
(a) Authority To Make Grants.--
* * * * * * *
(2) grants to private nonprofit organizations--
* * * * * * *
in connection with a correctional option (excluding the cost of
construction); [and]
* * * * * * *
(3) grants to public agencies to establish, operate,
and support boot camp prisons[.]; and
(4) grants to State courts to improve security for
State and local court systems.
(b) Selection of Grantees.--The selection of applicants to
receive grants under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a)
of this section shall be based on their potential for
developing or testing various innovative alternatives to
traditional modes of incarceration and offender release
programs. In selecting the applicants to receive grants under
subsection (a)(3) of this section, the Director shall--
(1) consider the overall quality of an applicant's
shock incarceration program, including the existence of
substance abuse treatment, drug testing, counseling
literacy education, vocational education, and job
training programs during incarceration or after
release; and
(2) give priority to public agencies that clearly
demonstrate that the capacity of their correctional
facilities is inadequate to accommodate the number of
individuals who are convicted of offenses punishable by
a term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year.
Priority shall be given to State court applicants under
subsection (a)(4) that have the greatest demonstrated need to
provide security in order to administer justice.
Sec. 3762b. Allocation of Funds; administrative provisions
(a) Allocation of Funds.--Of the total amount appropriated
for this subpart in any fiscal year, [80] 70 percent shall be
used to make grants under section 3762a(a)(1) of this title, 10
percent shall be used to make grants under section 3762a(a)(2)
of this title, [and 10] 10 percent shall be used to make grants
under section 3762a(a)(3) of this title, and 10 percent for
section 515(a)(4).
42 U.S.C. Sec. 3796ll
Sec. 3796ll. Program authorized
(a) In General.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance is authorized to make grants to States, units of
local government, and Indian tribes to purchase armor vests for
use by State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers and
State and local court officers.
(b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section shall
be--
(1) distributed directly to the State, unit of local
government, State or local court, or Indian tribe; and
28 U.S.C. Sec. 995--adding a new subsection
Sec. 995. Powers of the Commission
* * * * * * *
(f) The Commission May.--
(1) use available funds to enter into contracts for
the acquisition of severable services for a period that
begins in 1 fiscal year and ends in the next fiscal
year, to the same extent as executive agencies may
enter into such contracts under the authority of
section 303L of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253l);
(2) enter into multi-year contracts for the
acquisition of property or services to the same extent
as executive agencies may enter into such contracts
under the authority of section 304B of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41
U.S.C. 254c); and
(3) make advance, partial, progress, or other
payments under contracts for property or services to
the same extent as executive agencies may make such
payments under the authority of section 305 of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 (41 U.S.C. 255).
28 U.S.C. Sec. 604
Sec. 604. Duties of Director generally
(a)(5) Fix the compensation of clerks of court, deputies,
librarians, criers, messengers, law clerks, secretaries,
stenographers, clerical assistants, and other employees of the
courts whose compensation is not otherwise fixed by law, and,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, pay on behalf of
Justices and judges of the United States appointed to hold
office during good behavior, bankruptcy judges appointed under
section 152 of this title, magistrate judges appointed under
section 631 of this title, and territorial district court
judges appointed under section 24 of the Organic Act of Guam
(48 U.S.C. 1424(b)), section 1(b) of the Act of November 8,
1877 (48 U.S.C. 1821), or section 24(a) of the Revised Organic
Act of the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 1614(a)), aged 65 or over,
any increases in the cost of Federal Employees' Group Life
Insurance imposed after April 24, 1999, including any expenses
generated by such payments, as authorized by the Judicial
Conference of the United States;
28 U.S.C. Sec. 296
Sec. 296 Powers upon designation and assignment
* * * * * * *
Such justice or judge shall have all the powers of a judge
of the court, circuit or district to which he is designated and
assigned, except the power to appoint any person to a statutory
position or to designate permanently a depository of funds or a
newspaper for publication of legal notices. However, a judge
who has retired from regular active service under section
371(b) of this title, when designated and assigned to the court
to which such judge was appointed, shall have all the powers of
a judge of that court, including participation in appointment
of court officers and magistrates, rulemaking, governance, and
administrative matters.
28 U.S.C. Sec. 631
Sec. 631. Appointment and tenure
(a) The judges of each United States district court and the
district courts of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the [Northern
Mariana Islands] Northern Mariana Islands (including any judge
inregular active service and any judge who has retired from
regular active service under section 371(b) of this title, when
designated and assigned to the court to which such judge was appointed
shall appoint United States magistrate judges in such numbers and to
serve at such locations within the judicial districts as the Judicial
Conference may determine under this chapter. In the case of a
magistrate judge appointed by the district court of the Virgin Islands,
Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands, this chapter shall apply as
though the court appointing such a magistrate judge were a United
States district court. Where there is more than one judge of a district
court, the appointment, whether an original appointment or a
reappointment, shall be by the concurrence of a majority of all the
judges of such district court, and when there is no such concurrence,
then by the chief judge. Where the conference deems it desirable, a
magistrate judge may be designated to serve in one or more districts
adjoining the district for which he is appointed. Such a designation
shall be made by the concurrence of a majority of the judges of each of
the district courts involved and shall specify the duties to be
performed by the magistrate judge in the adjoining district or
districts.
5 U.S.C. App. 4 Sec. 405
Sec. 405. Authorization of appropriations
(The current provision provides: ``There are authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this title such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal year 2007.'' However, when S. 378 was
drafted, this provision of the Code was slightly different and
had an end date of 2006. The intent in drafting this provision
of S. 378 was to expand the end date, affected every fiscal
year and changing the end date from 2006 to 2011. We aim to
make this technical change by unanimous consent to reflect the
intervening amendment to the relevant provision in the United
States Code.)
28 U.S.C. Sec. 44
Sec. 44. Appointment, tenure, residence and salary of circuit judges
(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, circuit judges for the several circuits
as follows:
Circuits Number of Judges
District of Columbia.............................................[12] 11
* * * * * * *
Ninth............................................................[28] 29
VIII. Conclusion
Passage and enactment of the Court Security Improvement Act
of 2007, S. 378, is long overdue. This bipartisan legislation
strengthens and expands protections for judges and their
families in the wake of increasing, violent threats. Its much-
needed protections include new criminal penalties for
threatening judges and their families as well as additional
resources for keeping judges and law enforcement officers safe.