```

[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.

                                  

```