59–010 

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. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
2 

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. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
3 

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 

and expanding 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. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
4 

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. § 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. § 1513 for retaliation against a witness may be brought in 

the district in which the official proceeding intended to be affected 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
5 

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. § 1512 for tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. 

Section 206: This section increases statutory maximums under 

18 U.S.C. § 1513 for retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. 

Section 207: This section increases statutory maximums under 

18 U.S.C. § 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 § 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: 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. § 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. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
6 

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. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
7 

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. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
8 

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 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
9 

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. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
(10) 

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. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
11 

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. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
(12) 

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. § 566—adding a new subsection 

§ 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 øand 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. § 331 

§ 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. 

* * * * * * * 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
13 

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 §105 

§ 105. Custody of and public access to reports 

* * * * * * * 

(b)(3)(E) This paragraph shall expire on December 31, ø2005¿ 

2009, and apply to filings through calendar year ø2005¿ 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; øand¿ 

(iii) the types of threats against individuals whose reports 

are redacted, if appropriateø.¿; 

(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. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
14 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986—26 U.S.C. 

§ 7456 

§ 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 commandø.¿ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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—


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
15 

(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. § 930(e)(1) 

§ 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. § 1513—adding a new section 

§ 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,ø,¿ 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 ø20 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,ø,¿ parole, or release pending juVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:26 Apr 03, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR042.XXX SR042

jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
16 

dicial 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 øten years¿ 20 years, or both. 

ø(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. § 1512 

§ 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 ømurder (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 

ø20 years¿ 30 years; and 

(C) in the case of the threat of use of physical force 

against any person, imprisonment for not more than ø10 

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 øten 

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 øone year¿ 3 years, or both. 

18 U.S.C. § 1112 

§ 1112. Manslaughter 

* * * * * * * 

(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the 

United States, 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
17 

Whoever is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, shall be fined 

under this title or imprisoned not more than øten years¿ 20 years, 

or both; 

Whoever is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, shall be fined 

under this title or imprisoned not more than øsix years¿ 10 years, 

or both. 

Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994—42 U.S.C. § 13862 

§ 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; øand¿ 

(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 concernedø.¿;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. § 13867 

ø§ 13867. Authorization of Appropriations 

øThere are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part—

ø(1) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1996; 

ø(2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; 

ø(3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; 

ø(4) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and 

ø(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. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
18 

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968—42 U.S.C. §§ 3762a & 3762b 

§ 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); øand¿ 

* * * * * * * 

(3) grants to public agencies to establish, operate, and support boot camp prisonsø.¿; 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. 

§ 3762b. Allocation of Funds; administrative provisions 

(a) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—Of the total amount appropriated for 

this subpart in any fiscal year, ø80¿ 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, øand 

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. § 3796ll 

§ 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, 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
19 

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. § 995—adding a new subsection 

§ 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. § 604 

§ 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; 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
20 

28 U.S.C. § 296 

§ 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. § 631 

§ 631. Appointment and tenure 

(a) The judges of each United States district court and the district courts of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the øNorthern Mariana Islands¿ Northern Mariana Islands (including any judge in 

regular 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 § 405 

§ 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 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS
21 

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. § 44 

§ 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 ...............................................................................................ø12¿ 11 

* * * * * * * 

Ninth .......................................................................................................................ø28¿ 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. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with REPORTS