Senate Passes Leahy-Backed Measure To Strengthen Court Security
…Bill Would Help
Protect Judges,
Their Families Against Increased Threats Of Violence
WASHINGTON
(Thursday, Dec. 7) -- The Senate
late Wednesday evening unanimously passed the Court Security
Improvement Act of 2006. The bipartisan bill would strengthen
protections for judges and their families.
A version of the bill was first
introduced in the Senate in 2005 by Senators Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.,
and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the leading members of the Judiciary
Committee. The pair teamed up to bolster security in courts around
the country in the wake of increasingly violent threats against
judges and their families, including the tragic murder of the family
of Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago. Since then, Leahy and Specter
have worked with Senate Democratic Leaders Harry Reid, D-Nev., and
Richard Durbin, D-Ill., to get the bill passed, and were successful
in June when key provisions were included in the Department of
Defense Authorization bill. The Senate on Wednesday again backed the
measure in the form of the companion House bill, H.R. 1751.
“Threatening or intimidating our
judges cannot be tolerated in this country. The rise in threats
against our judges puts the men and women who serve in our justice
system at risk and is a repugnant assault on our independent
judiciary,” said Leahy, who is set to become Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee in the new 110th Congress. “We owe
it to our judges to better protect them and their families from
violence and to ensure that they have the peace of mind necessary to
do their vital and difficult jobs.”
The bill, which also contains
important provisions extending life insurance benefits to
bankruptcy, magistrate and territorial judges, moves to the House
for its consideration. Below is Senator Leahy’s statement on the
passage of the bill followed by a section-by-section of the measure.
# # # # #
Statement Of
Senator Patrick Leahy,
Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee,
On The Passage Of H.R. 1751, The Court Security
Improvement Act Of 2006
December 6, 2006
It has been a difficult struggle to
pass a measure to improve court security. It should not have been.
This bill should have been enacted months ago with bipartisan
support. I want to thank the Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, the
Senate Judiciary Chairman, Senator Specter, and the Assistant
Democratic Leader, Senator Durbin, for their leadership and hard
work in finally passing the Court Security Improvement Act of 2006,
to increase protections for the dedicated women and men throughout
the Judiciary in this country.
I hope that House of Representatives
will take up and pass this measure. By so doing they can bring to
fruition before the end of this Congress our efforts to provide
increased security, an effort that gained new urgency after the
tragedy that befell Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago. She is the
federal judge whose mother and husband were murdered in their home.
As we heard in her courageous testimony in May 2005 before the
Judiciary Committee, this tragedy provided a terrible reminder not
only of the vulnerable position of our judges and their families,
but of the critical importance of protecting judges both where they
work and where they and their families live. The shooting last
summer of a State judge in Nevada provided another terrible reminder
of the vulnerable position of our Nation’s state and federal
judges. We cannot tolerate or excuse or justify violence or the
threat of violence against judges.
It is most unfortunate that some in
this country have chosen to use dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric
when talking about judges, comparing judges to terrorists and
threatening judges with punishment for decisions they do not like.
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. Judicial fairness and independence are essential if
we are to maintain our freedoms. Let no one say things that might
bring about further threats against our judges. We ought to be
protecting them physically and institutionally. Easy rhetorical pot
shots put judges in real danger.
The bill that passes today is a
consensus bipartisan bill. I hope it is a model for what we can
achieve with bipartisan cooperation in the 110th
Congress. Its core provisions, which previously passed the Senate
in June as part of the managers’ package of the “John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,” S. 2766,
come from S.1968, the streamlined Court Security Improvement Act of
2005 (“CSIA”), which Chairman Specter and I introduced last
November.
The bill responds to requests by the
federal judiciary for a greater voice in working with the United
States Marshals Service to determine their security needs. It
enacts new criminal penalties for the misuse of restricted personal
information to harm or threaten to harm federal judges, their
families or other individuals performing official duties. It enacts
criminal penalties for threatening federal judges and federal law
enforcement officials by the malicious filing of false liens, and
provides increased protections for witnesses. The bill also
contains provisions making available to states new resources to
improve security for state and local court systems as well as
providing additional protections for law enforcement officers. In
particular, I want to thank Chairman Specter for agreeing to include
in the bill an extension of life insurance benefits to bankruptcy,
magistrate and territorial judges.
Finally, the bill contains provisions
that have passed the Senate several times extending and expanding to
family members the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact
certain information from a federal judge’s mandatory financial
disclosure. This expired redaction authority was used in
circumstances in which the release of the information could endanger
the filer or the filer’s family. I hope that the House of
Representatives finally takes up and passes this much needed
extension and expansion of redaction authority.
We owe it to our judges to better
protect them and their families from violence and to ensure that
they have the peace of mind necessary to do their vital and
difficult jobs.
# # # # #
Section-by-Section
of Court Security Improvement Act of 2006
Title I – Judicial
Security Improvements and Funding
Section 101: Directs the Director
of the U.S. Marshal Service to consult with the Judicial Conference
regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch.
Section 102: Extends the Judicial
Conference’s 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: Extends the authority
of the Judicial Conference to grant redactions of statutorily
required information from federal judges’ financial disclosure
reports until 2009 and adds to the current reporting requirements
additional information to be reported.
Section 104: This section would
authorize the Marshals to provide for the security of the Tax Court
where criminal intimidation impedes on the functioning of the
judicial process or other official proceeding.
Section 105: This section
authorizes an additional $20,000,000 for the U.S. Marshal Service to
protect the judiciary.
Title II --
Criminal Law Enhancements to Protect Judges, Family Members and
Witnesses
Section 201: Creates a new offense
with a maximum penalty of a fine, imprisonment for not more than ten
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: Makes it 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: Amends §930(e) of title
18, United States Code, 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 provision
clarifies that a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §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: Increases statutory maxes under 18 USC § 1512 for
tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.
Section 206: Increases statutory
maxes under 18 USC § 1513 for retaliating against a witness, victim,
or an informant.
Section 207: Increases statutory
maxes under 18 U.S.C. § 1112(b) for federal murder and related
crimes.
Title III --
Protecting State and Local Judges and Related Grant Programs
Section 301: This section amends
§31702 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(42 U.S.C. § 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: Facilitates
implementation of those provisions of the Law Enforcement Officers’
Safety Act that allow retired police officers to carry concealed
firearms by amending §926B to reduce the number of years of service
that a law enforcement officer must have served to qualify to carry
a weapon and amending requirements for identification required under
the statute.
Section 402: This section directs
the AG to submit to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees a
report on the security of AUSAs 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.
Section 403: This section directs
GAO to begin a study within 6 months of enactment of this Act to
determine, within 15 months after that date, the number of qualified
law enforcement officers in each State or political subdivision
carrying a concealed firearm under 926B of title 18, the number of
qualified retired law enforcement officers with less than 15 years
of service carrying a concealed firearm, and various other issues.
Title V --
Miscellaneous
Section 501: This section would
permit the 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 would
enable 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 would amend
28 U.S.C. §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 would
permit a senior judge designated and assigned to the court to which
he was appointed the power to participate in selection of
magistrates.
Section 505: Reauthorizes the Office
of Government Ethics until 2011.
# # # # #
