To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should offset the cost of new spending.

COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to the
consideration of S. 378, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 378) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their
family members and for other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported
from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment.
[Insert the part printed in italic]

S. 378

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Court Security Improvement
Act of 2007''.

TITLE I--JUDICIAL SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS AND FUNDING

SEC. 101. JUDICIAL BRANCH SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Ensuring Consultation With the Judiciary.--Section 566
of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(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.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 331 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``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.''.

SEC. 102. PROTECTION OF FAMILY MEMBERS.

Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or a family member
of that individual'' after ``that individual''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by inserting ``or a family
member of that individual'' after ``the report''.

SEC. 103. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS.

(a) Extension of Authority.--Section 105(b)(3) of the
Ethics in Government Act of

[[Page S4654]]

1978 (5 U.S.C. App) is amended by striking ``2005'' each
place that term appears and inserting ``2009''.
(b) Report Contents.--Section 105(b)(3)(C) of the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App) is amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (iii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(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.''.

SEC. 104. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES TAX COURT.

(a) In General.--Section 566(a) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``and the Court of International
Trade'' and inserting ``, the Court of International Trade,
and any other court, as provided by law''.
(b) Internal Revenue Code.--Section 7456(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to incidental powers of the
Tax Court) is amended in the matter following paragraph (3),
by striking the period at the end, and inserting ``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.''.

SEC. 105. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERVICE TO PROTECT THE JUDICIARY.

In addition to any other amounts authorized to be
appropriated for the United States Marshals Service, there
are authorized to be appropriated for the United States
Marshals Service to protect the judiciary, $20,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 for--
(1) hiring entry-level deputy marshals for providing
judicial security;
(2) hiring senior-level deputy marshals for investigating
threats to the judiciary and providing protective details to
members of the judiciary and assistant United States
attorneys; and
(3) for the Office of Protective Intelligence, for hiring
senior-level deputy marshals, hiring program analysts, and
providing secure computer systems.

TITLE II--CRIMINAL LAW ENHANCEMENTS TO PROTECT JUDGES, FAMILY MEMBERS,
AND WITNESSES

SEC. 201. PROTECTIONS AGAINST MALICIOUS RECORDING OF
FICTITIOUS LIENS AGAINST FEDERAL JUDGES AND
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

(a) Offense.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``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.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
73 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:

``1521. Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement
officer by false claim or slander of title.''.

SEC. 202. PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING CERTAIN
OFFICIAL DUTIES.

(a) Offense.--Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``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).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``118. Protection of individuals performing certain official duties.''.

SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS IN
FEDERAL COURT FACILITIES.

Section 930(e)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``or other dangerous weapon'' after
``firearm''.

SEC. 204. CLARIFICATION OF VENUE FOR RETALIATION AGAINST A
WITNESS.

Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(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.''.

SEC. 205. MODIFICATION OF TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS, VICTIM,
OR AN INFORMANT OFFENSE.

(a) Changes in Penalties.--Section 1512 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) so that subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(3) reads as
follows:
``(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in
sections 1111 and 1112;'';
(2) in subsection (a)(3)--
(A) in the matter following clause (ii) of subparagraph (B)
by striking ``20 years'' and inserting ``30 years''; and
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``10 years'' and
inserting ``20 years'';
(3) in subsection (b), by striking ``ten years'' and
inserting ``20 years''; and
(4) in subsection (d), by striking ``one year'' and
inserting ``3 years''.

SEC. 206. MODIFICATION OF RETALIATION OFFENSE.

Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(B)--
(A) by inserting a comma after ``probation''; and
(B) by striking the comma which immediately follows another
comma;
(2) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``20 years'' and
inserting ``30 years'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by inserting a comma after ``probation''; and
(ii) by striking the comma which immediately follows
another comma; and
(B) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking
``ten years'' and inserting ``20 years''; and
(4) by redesignating the second subsection (e) as
subsection (f).

SEC. 207. GENERAL MODIFICATIONS OF FEDERAL MURDER CRIME AND
RELATED CRIMES.

Section 1112(b) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``ten years'' and inserting ``20 years'';
and
(2) by striking ``six years'' and inserting ``10 years''.

TITLE III--PROTECTING STATE AND LOCAL JUDGES AND RELATED GRANT PROGRAMS

SEC. 301. GRANTS TO STATES TO PROTECT WITNESSES AND VICTIMS
OF CRIMES.

(a) In General.--Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(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.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 31707 of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as follows:

``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.''.

SEC. 302. ELIGIBILITY OF STATE COURTS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL
GRANTS.

(a) Correctional Options Grants.--Section 515 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3762a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) grants to State courts to improve security for State
and local court systems.''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting after the period the
following:

[[Page S4655]]

``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.''.
(b) Allocations.--Section 516(a) of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3762b) is
amended by--
(1) striking ``80'' and inserting ``70'';
(2) striking ``and 10'' and inserting ``10''; and
(3) inserting before the period the following: ``, and 10
percent for section 515(a)(4)''.
(c) State and Local Governments to Consider Courts.--The
Attorney General may require, as appropriate, that whenever a
State or unit of local government or Indian tribe applies for
a grant from the Department of Justice, the State, unit, or
tribe demonstrate that, in developing the application and
distributing funds, the State, unit, or tribe--
(1) considered the needs of the judicial branch of the
State, unit, or tribe, as the case may be;
(2) consulted with the chief judicial officer of the
highest court of the State, unit, or tribe, as the case may
be; and
(3) consulted with the chief law enforcement officer of the
law enforcement agency responsible for the security needs of
the judicial branch of the State, unit, or tribe, as the case
may be.
(d) Armor Vests.--Section 2501 of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and State and local
court officers'' after ``tribal law enforcement officers'';
and
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``State or local
court,'' after ``government,''.

TITLE IV--LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

SEC. 401. REPORT ON SECURITY OF FEDERAL PROSECUTORS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to
the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a
report on the security of assistant United States attorneys
and other Federal attorneys arising from the prosecution of
terrorists, violent criminal gangs, drug traffickers, gun
traffickers, white supremacists, those who commit fraud and
other white-collar offenses, and other criminal cases.
(b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a)
shall describe each of the following:
(1) The number and nature of threats and assaults against
attorneys handling prosecutions described in subsection (a)
and the reporting requirements and methods.
(2) The security measures that are in place to protect the
attorneys who are handling prosecutions described in
subsection (a), including threat assessments, response
procedures, availability of security systems and other
devices, firearms licensing (deputations), and other measures
designed to protect the attorneys and their families.
(3) The firearms deputation policies of the Department of
Justice, including the number of attorneys deputized and the
time between receipt of threat and completion of the
deputation and training process.
(4) For each requirement, measure, or policy described in
paragraphs (1) through (3), when the requirement, measure, or
policy was developed and who was responsible for developing
and implementing the requirement, measure, or policy.
(5) The programs that are made available to the attorneys
for personal security training, including training relating
to limitations on public information disclosure, basic home
security, firearms handling and safety, family safety, mail
handling, counter-surveillance, and self-defense tactics.
(6) The measures that are taken to provide attorneys
handling prosecutions described in subsection (a) with secure
parking facilities, and how priorities for such facilities
are established--
(A) among Federal employees within the facility;
(B) among Department of Justice employees within the
facility; and
(C) among attorneys within the facility.
(7) The frequency attorneys handling prosecutions described
in subsection (a) are called upon to work beyond standard
work hours and the security measures provided to protect
attorneys at such times during travel between office and
available parking facilities.
(8) With respect to attorneys who are licensed under State
laws to carry firearms, the policy of the Department of
Justice as to--
(A) carrying the firearm between available parking and
office buildings;
(B) securing the weapon at the office buildings; and
(C) equipment and training provided to facilitate safe
storage at Department of Justice facilities.
(9) The offices in the Department of Justice that are
responsible for ensuring the security of attorneys handling
prosecutions described in subsection (a), the organization
and staffing of the offices, and the manner in which the
offices coordinate with offices in specific districts.
(10) The role, if any, that the United States Marshals
Service or any other Department of Justice component plays in
protecting, or providing security services or training for,
attorneys handling prosecutions described in subsection (a).

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. EXPANDED PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED
STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.

(a) In General.--Section 995 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(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).''.
(b) Sunset.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
cease to have force and effect on September 30, 2010.

SEC. 502. BANKRUPTCY, MAGISTRATE, AND TERRITORIAL JUDGES LIFE
INSURANCE.

(a) In General.--Section 604(a)(5) of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after ``hold office
during good behavior,'' the following: ``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. 1424b), 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)),''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to any payment made on or after the
first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or
after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 503. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES.

Section 296 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
inserting at the end of the second undesignated paragraph the
following new sentence: ``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.''.

SEC. 504. SENIOR JUDGE PARTICIPATION IN THE SELECTION OF
MAGISTRATES.

Section 631(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``Northern Mariana Islands'' the first place it
appears and inserting ``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)''.

SEC. 505. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT.

Section 405 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5
U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 506. FEDERAL JUDGES FOR COURTS OF APPEALS.

Section 44(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
in the table--
(1) in the item relating to the District of Columbia
Circuit, by striking ``12'' and inserting ``11''; and
(2) in the item relating to the Ninth Circuit, by striking
``28'' and inserting ``29''.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of S. 378, the
Court Security Improvement Act. But before I do, I wish to address
remarks made this morning by the majority whip, the distinguished
Senator from Illinois, for whom I have a lot of respect, but I have to
tell you, I disagree with those comments, and I wish to take a few
moments to explain why.
Throughout his comments, the Senator repeated the theme that
Republicans were stopping debate on the floor and not allowing bills to
be debated. I disagree with him, and I believe nothing could be farther
from the truth. The truth is, as I see it, the majority has tried to
force things through the Senate, and they have done so in a way that
has denied the minority an opportunity to offer amendments and to allow
this body, the so-called world's greatest deliberative body, to

[[Page S4656]]

even have votes and make decisions on those important amendments.
This morning, the Democratic whip talked about our Founders' intent
that ``minority rights would always be respected.'' In this body,
minority rights are not being respected. That is the problem. So we
have no choice but to assert the last protection against majority
tyranny; that is, to object or vote against invoking cloture or closing
off debate.
In the past, the majority has used cloture when necessary to move a
bill forward, after debate has been exhausted, but the minority refuses
to allow movement on the legislation. I think that is a perfectly
legitimate use of the cloture motion.
By this date in the 109th Congress--the Congress just preceding the
current Congress--Republicans, when they were in the majority, had
filed cloture four times. In the 108th Congress--the immediately
preceding Congress--at this point in time, when Republicans were in the
majority, Republicans had filed cloture five times. In the 107th
Congress, Republicans only filed cloture one time at this point in
time.
By comparison, since the Democrats have now become the new majority
in the Senate, Democrats have filed cloture 22 times. The question
naturally arises: Why are Democrats using this divisive tactic so
frequently to close off debate?
Well, I think my colleague from Illinois disclosed the reason this
morning when he stated:

Ultimately, they will be held accountable for their
strategy. That is what elections are all about.

It is the view from this Senator, from my perspective, the Democrats
are using this tactic to paint Republicans as obstructionists, when the
exact opposite is true. The new Democratic majority in the Senate is
refusing to allow full and fair debate on issue after issue and, more
importantly, denying us an opportunity to offer amendments on important
legislation and to simply have an up-or-down vote on those amendments.
I can tell you, from my perspective, Republicans do not enjoy the
procedural clash any more than Democrats do. But it is necessary to
protect this institution and, even more importantly, necessary to
protect the rights afforded in the Senate to the minority.
We have been eager to engage in full debate, and we understand the
rules that majorities will prevail when majorities have an opportunity
to vote. But the rules do not permit the new majority, the Democrats,
to unilaterally set the terms for the debate. Until the Democratic
majority recognizes all Members of this body have the right to debate
legislation, to offer amendments, and to have votes on those
amendments, we will continue in this standoff.
It is true, I believe, that only the majority--the new Democratic
majority--can fix this problem by simply allowing full debate to go
forward and by allowing up-or-down votes on amendments on the Senate
floor, which requires discussions, which requires negotiations, and,
yes, it requires compromise.
Filing cloture--closing off debate--is an intensely aggressive move.
It says: We do not want to hear your opinions. We do not want to hear
your views. We do not want to consider your ideas on how to improve the
legislation on the floor of the Senate. We want to shut down the
debate, and we want to shove this legislation through the Senate. It is
a ``my way or the highway'' approach to legislation. And do you know
what. It does not work.
I would point out--and I guess it is fair to say if you have been in
the Senate long enough--and I have not--but I have been told, if you
have been in the Senate long enough, you will find yourself, at some
points in your career, on the side of the majority, and at other times
you will find yourself on the side of the minority. It is the way it
works.
Last Congress, when Democrats were in the minority, they insisted
that the filing of cloture turned the Senate into the House of
Representatives--a refusal to allow open and broad debate, with hard
majority rule. Here they are now, though, attempting to cut off debate
at, it seems, almost every possible turn. It is the reason--and this is
the consequence of it; it is not just complaining about it; this is the
consequence that has a very real impact on the American people because
the new majority, the Democratic majority, has refused an opportunity
for full and fair debate and votes on amendments--that is the reason
why Democrats have not sent any real legislation to the President for
his signature after 3 months in power. They have chosen the hard edge
of party politics instead of bipartisanship.

Our Democratic friends have chosen to pursue this agenda driven by
campaign rhetoric instead of seeking the broad middle ground and trying
to negotiate and to pass legislation on behalf of the American people.
It is true that Democrats won the last election--and my congratulations
to them--on a message of bipartisanship, on a message of, let's get
things done. But their choices to date have not reflected any effort to
seriously reach across the aisle to do that.
One example that comes to mind is on Iraq. My colleague from Illinois
claimed:

We were stopped, stopped by the Republican minority. They
would not allow us to go to the substance of that debate.
They didn't want the Senate to spend its time on the floor
considering a resolution, going on record as to whether we
approve or disapprove of the President's action.

The fact is, completely the opposite occurred. Republicans on this
incredibly important debate asked only that we be allowed to discuss
the issue fully, and the Democratic majority repeatedly attempted to
ram through their resolution without offering any alternatives or any
opportunity for alternative resolutions to be considered and voted on.
We explained this on the Senate floor over and over during that
discussion, but our colleagues in the majority simply turned a deaf ear
to our concerns. When they finally allowed several options to be
considered, we were able to have a full debate we had been asking for
all along, and then the process moved forward.
I would point out that was on the 20th iteration of the resolutions
on Iraq before we had an opportunity to have that debate, a vote, and
to move the process forward.
My colleague from Illinois repeated several times this morning his
hope that we could ``find some ways to establish bipartisan
cooperation.''
I say to my colleague, there is a way to do that. The majority must
stop trying to ram legislation through and allow us to debate openly
and to file relevant amendments and allow an up-or-down vote on those
amendments.
My colleague from Illinois talked about the ``do-nothing Congress''
of last year--that was his phraseology--and placed sole blame for the
current majority's lack of accomplishments on the minority's refusal to
invoke cloture or close off debate. The Washington Post just this
morning reported that only 26 percent of the public thinks the current
Democratic majority in Congress has accomplished ``a great deal'' or
``a good amount.''
The fact is, this approach to legislating has not produced a single
piece of significant legislation so far in this Congress due to the
lack of bipartisanship and due to the lack of opportunity the minority
has had to fully participate in the debate and shaping of legislation.
Of the 17 laws enacted this Congress, 10 of those are naming of Federal
properties. Let me say that again. Of the 17 pieces of legislation
enacted in this Congress so far, 10 of them involve naming of Federal
properties, Federal buildings, post offices and the like. Not one of
the ``six for '06'' campaign promises has been passed by Congress.
The majority, to be sure, is blaming the minority for the lack of
progress here based on the result of cloture votes, but let's look at
the facts.
On the 9/11 bill, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the
House and the Senate passed different bills. Democratic leadership in
neither body has brought up the other's bill so that those might be
resolved in a conference committee.
On the minimum wage bill, the House and the Senate passed different
versions, but no conferees have been appointed by either body.
On the emergency war supplemental, perhaps the most urgent piece of
legislation we could possibly pass and send to the President to support
the troops who are in harm's way as I speak, the House and the Senate
passed different versions of the bill. The House, fresh off of a 2-week
recess, has yet to appoint conferees to start working out

[[Page S4657]]

the differences between the bills to get funding to our troops. This is
especially damaging and reckless, considering the majority is insisting
we send a bill to the President that has a timeline for withdrawal, a
provision that has caused the President to promise to veto that
legislation. That means before the troops can get the money they need--
in other words, to get them the equipment they need during this war--
before we can get them the money, we have to come up with a bill the
President will sign. Yet the Democratic majority has continued to play
politics and stall the bill.
On stem cell research, no conferees have been appointed. The same for
the budget. The same for lobbying reform. The list goes on and on.
The distinguished Senator from Illinois, the Democratic whip,
explained that due to the numbers in this body:

On any given day, if we're going to pass or consider
important legislation, it has to be bipartisan.

And that:

If we're going to be constructive in the United States
Senate, we need much more bipartisan cooperation.

He continued, saying:

We should come together, Democrats and Republicans, and
compromise and cooperate.

And asking,

Isn't it time we really start out on a new day in the
Congress trying to find bipartisan ways to cooperate and
solve the real problems that face our country?

To that I say amen. It is past time for the new majority in this body
to stop acting like they are Members of the House of Representatives
who are going to be able to force their will by a simple majority
through the Senate because this is not the House. This is the Senate.
The only way we are going to be able to get any legislation passed is
through bipartisan cooperation. The only way we are going to get that
cooperation is to meet in the middle somehow, to debate as our
constituents would expect us to debate, to take positions--yes, firmly
held positions--based on our convictions. But then ultimately we need
to have votes on amendments and votes on legislation and let the
majority prevail. Let's send the bills to the President for his
signature. That is the way it is supposed to work. That is the way it
has not been working, but we know the way forward.
I have to tell my colleagues that I and my Republican colleagues
would welcome the opportunity to sit down on a bipartisan basis and to
reach a consensus on important issues such as how to preserve our
entitlement programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare
by protecting their long-term solvency. How do we avoid passing the
bills incurred by the baby boomer generation on down to our children
and grandchildren? How can we expand health care access to more
Americans? How can we solve our broken immigration system, along with
the broken borders that pose a national security risk to each and every
American citizen? After all, I have to believe that is the reason we
ran for public office. That is the reason we wanted to be elected to
serve in the Senate--whether we are a Republican or a Democrat--to make
a difference for the American people, to make our country a better
place, and to make tomorrow better for our children and grandchildren
than it is today. Instead, we spend day after day taking partisan votes
that lead to nothing but gridlock. This is the choice of the majority,
not the choice of the minority.
After the first 100 days, the Congress is, again, at a fork in the
road. So far the new majority has taken the path of partisanship, but
we know that will not get us down the road to progress. I hope during
the second 100 days of this new Congress, the new majority will pause
and decide to take the road less traveled--the road of cooperation and
accomplishment.
Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on the Court Security
Improvement Act, a bill of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. As we
have already heard, this bill is designed to address the critical issue
of the security of our judges and courthouse personnel. I have to add
as a personal note, this is not a matter of just some academic interest
to me. I believe I am correct in that I am the only current Member of
the Senate who has served as a member of the judiciary, in my case for
13 years in our State court system in Texas, both at the trial bench
and at the Texas Supreme Court level. So this is more than a matter of
academic interest to me. Protecting our men and women who personify the
rule of law and all that it means is very important.
The dedicated men and women who work in America's courthouses, from
the judges to the court reporters to the bailiffs, preside each day
over difficult, contentious, and sometimes very emotional disputes.
These public servants, just like our police, are placed in harm's way
by the very nature of their jobs. They fulfill essential roles that
keep our democracy running smoothly, and I have the greatest respect
for the people who try to do this job and try to do it well.
Unfortunately, violence directed at public servants is on the rise,
from escalating violence against police officers to courthouse
attacks--including in my State of Texas--these despicable actions
threaten the administration of justice and threaten our ability to
invoke the rule of law.
This Congress has the power, and now we must exercise it, to ensure
that certain and swift punishment awaits those who engage in these
unconscionable acts of violence. The administration of justice--indeed,
the health of our very democracy--depends on our ability to attract
dedicated public servants to work at our courthouses. So we must do
everything in our power to provide adequate security to these men and
women who are too often targeted for violence or harassment simply
because of the position they hold and the decisions they are called
upon to make.
As a former attorney general in my State, I had the responsibility of
defending sentences on appeal of certain defendants who had been found
guilty of violent acts. So I am acutely aware of the devastating
effects criminal acts of violence have on not only the victims
themselves but also on their families. Because I also used to be a
judge, I am fortunate to have a number of close personal friends who
continue to serve on our benches and work at our courthouses. I
personally know judges and their families who have been victims of
violence, and I have grieved with those victims and their families.
Our judges are impartial umpires of the law. We know they cannot help
but disappoint some people because that is what they do--they make
decisions. They determine winners and losers. Judges, witnesses, and
courthouse personnel must not face threats and violence for simply
doing their job.
The protection of the men and women who compose our judicial system
and serve the public and law enforcement is essential to the proper
administration of justice in our country. This important bill takes big
steps toward providing additional protections on these dedicated public
servants. I urge my colleagues to give it their full support.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Supreme Court Ruling on Abortion Ban

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this morning, I heard my friend and
colleague, Senator Brownback, on the floor speaking about the decision
of the Supreme Court. He and I both chair the Senate's Cancer
Coalition, so it has been a great pleasure for me to work with him. But
we have very different views when it comes to a woman's right to
choose, and I would like to rise today to express my concern and deep
dismay regarding the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Gonzales
v. Carhart.
This judgment today is a major strike against a woman's right to
choose. The Court, in this case, by a narrow 5-to-4 margin, has
essentially enacted the first Federal abortion ban in this country and
has struck down a primary requirement of Roe v. Wade--protection of the
health of a mother.
In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote:

[[Page S4658]]

Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and
Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, Federal
intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary
and proper in certain cases by the American College of
Obstetrics and Gynecologists. It blurs the line firmly drawn
in Casey between pre-viability and post- viability abortions.
And for the first time since Roe, the court blesses a
prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

This is simply shocking. It is shocking because this can affect any
second-trimester abortion.
Just 7 years ago, the Supreme Court struck down this very ban in
Stenberg v. Carhart in the year 2000. It struck it down out of concern
that it did not provide adequate protections for a woman's health and
that the law enacted was too vague. The Federal courts, the Fifth and
the Ninth Circuits, have all examined this and opposed it. No Federal
Court has upheld this abortion ban until today.
Now, what has changed in the 7 years? The answer is nothing, except
the composition of the Court. The additions of Chief Justice Roberts
and Justice Alito have accomplished what the Bush administration has
sought from its earliest days--a court willing to further restrict a
woman's right to choose.
When they appeared before the Judiciary Committee during their
confirmation hearings, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito
affirmed their respect for stare decisis as preeminent and a
controlling factor. In these hearings, Chief Justice Roberts said, and
I quote:

People expect that the law is going to be what the court
has told them the law is going to be. And that's an important
consideration.

Justice Alito said, and I quote:

I've agreed, I think numerous times during these hearings,
that when a decision is reaffirmed, that strengthens its
value as stare decisis.
With Justice O'Connor no longer on the Court, the majority of
Justices ignored what Senator Specter referred to as ``super
precedent'' in these hearings.
As Justice Ginsburg points out:

The Court admits that ``moral concerns'' are at work,
concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortions.

She continues:

Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an
autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety. This
way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place
in the family and under the Constitution--ideas that have
long since been discredited.

The Court, now filled with Bush appointees, is replacing the judicial
precedent that they promised to respect for their definition of
morality. That is where I see us as being today. With this ruling, the
Supreme Court has substituted the medical decisions of politicians for
that of doctors.
In the Congressional findings of the legislation creating this ban,
as well as the majority opinion of the Court, politicians and Justices
decided what procedures are medically necessary and which are not.
Justice Kennedy wrote, in today's majority decision, that the Court
assumed the abortion ban would ``be unconstitutional if it subjected
women to significant health risks.'' He goes on to declare ``safe
medical options are available.''
However, doctors who perform these procedures disagree. The American
College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the group that represents more
than 90 percent of all OB/GYN specialists in the country, assembled an
expert panel that identified several specific instances in which this
procedure, intact dilation and extraction, has meaningful safety
advantages over other medical options.
The procedure is safer for women with serious underlying medical
conditions, including liver disease, bleeding and clotting disorders,
and compromised immune systems.
Experts also testified that this procedure is significantly safer for
women carrying fetuses with certain abnormalities, including severe
hydrocephalus. That is when the head fills with water and is very often
larger than the body. In these rare and heartbreaking cases in which a
woman learns that something has gone tragically wrong in a pregnancy
she very much wanted, no woman should be forced to bear the added
burden of undergoing a medical procedure that is not the safest option.
The decision today unquestionably breaks new ground. I am extremely
concerned that this has opened the door to a further judicial
interference in what should be private medical decisions made by women,
their partners, their religious beliefs, and their doctors. With this
decision, the Roberts Court is signaling a new willingness to uphold
additional restrictions on abortion, even those that do not expressly
protect a woman's health. This is dangerous.
The Roberts Court has also opened the door for a major change in how
it will determine whether a law unconstitutionally restricts a woman's
rights. Generally, laws have been struck down when they are
unconstitutional on their face, because if a law is unconstitutional
for 10 people or 10 million people, then it should not stand. The Court
is turning that analysis on its head. The Court's opinion today says it
may uphold laws, even when they may be unconstitutional.
This means that in the future a woman could be put in an untenable
situation. A woman facing a health crisis needs to act within days or
weeks but instead would need to depend on the legal system. Let me give
you an example.
A woman learns her pregnancy has gone tragically wrong and her health
is at risk. She is told by the doctor that there exists a medical
procedure that would help her, but it is banned. The alternatives will
risk her health.
She has to go to court and argue that her constitutional rights, in
this specific instance, have been violated.
We all know the wheels of justice spin slowly. It is doubtful the
system could respond in a timely manner to a woman in this kind of
crisis. If she can prove her case, she might be allowed to have the
procedure, but the ban itself would still remain in place, requiring
the next woman in a similar situation to have to successfully
demonstrate that the law is unconstitutional. This is amazing. The
Court, in effect, is requiring that women's health be at risk until it
deems enough women have demonstrated the negative impact of the law on
them. Requiring this type of legal challenge to any restriction on
abortion will impact women in the most vulnerable situations.
I would like, for a moment, to quote Justice Ginsburg. She points
out:

Those views, this Court made clear in Casey, ``are no
longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the
individual, or the Constitution.'' . . . Women, it is now
acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ``to
participate equally in the social life of this Nation.''

In this, incidentally, she is quoting Sandra Day O'Connor in places
in an earlier decision.

Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court
recognized, is intimately connected to ``their ability to
control their reproductive lives.'' . . . Thus, legal
challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do
not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy;
rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her
life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.
In keeping with this comprehension of the right to
reproductive choice, the Court has consistently required that
laws regulating abortion, at any stage of pregnancy and in
all cases, safeguard a woman's health.

This is now out the window. It is monumental.
In conclusion, I remember what it was like when abortion was illegal
in America. It was when I was a college student at Stanford. I watched
the passing of the plate to collect money so young women could go to
Tijuana for an abortion. I knew a woman who ended her life because she
was pregnant. In the 1960s, while abortion was still illegal, as a
member of the California Board of Terms and Parole, I sentenced women
convicted of illegally performing abortions. I saw the morbidity that
they caused by their procedures. It was barbaric in those days. So I am
very concerned with this ruling.
The Court is taking the first major step back to these days of 30, 40
years ago. Young women today have not had these experiences. They have
lived only in an era in which the Court recognized their autonomy,
their right to make their own medical decisions. If I were a young
woman today, I would be incredibly concerned that this era is drawing
to a close. The threat on reproductive freedom is no longer
theoretical. Today it is very real. All those who care about protecting
a woman's right to privacy should take notice and make their voices
heard.

[[Page S4659]]

I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the minority allowing
us to move to this bill, this most important bill, dealing with court
security. But here we go again; nothing happening on it. I am willing
to have Democrats and Republicans debate these amendments. There have
been some that have been filed but not offered.
I just left a meeting in my office with the head of the U.S. Marshals
Service. His name is John Clark. He indicated to me, among other
things, that this year there has been a 17-percent increase in the
threats against our Federal judges, Supreme Court Justices, and all our
other Federal judges; about 11,000, I think that is what he told me. I
may have that number a little bit wrong; I just left him a minute ago.
This is important legislation. It allows our Federal judges not to
have to list the names of their children, where they live, where the
individual judge lives. We had in Illinois a terrible situation where
one of these disgruntled defendants in a criminal case went to some
judge's home and waited for the family to come home and killed them.
We need to move this bill. I don't want a hue and cry from the
minority that we are not allowing amendments; we want amendments. If
people want to amend this bill, let them do it. But I am going to file
cloture on this bill tonight for a Friday cloture vote. We have got to
complete legislation around here. We cannot come here each day and sit
around looking at each other. We should be doing some legislating.
If people do not like this bipartisan bill that is now before the
Senate, offer an amendment to change it. I am not going to give my
speech--I have given it too many times--on our being thwarted in
efforts to move forward on improving the intelligence services of this
country. I don't need to give a speech about our inability to negotiate
for lower prices of prescription drugs. But we are now on court
security. I had to file cloture on that. After cloture was invoked,
they allowed us to move to the bill, saving us 27 hours or 28 hours on
it. I do not think it is appropriate that we stand around here today
and tomorrow.
We have a bill that is bipartisan to its very core, a competitiveness
bill. Senator Bingaman, a Democrat, and Senator Alexander, a
Republican, have worked on this bill. This is their pride and joy. It
is the legislation that will improve this country's ability to be more
competitive scientifically. I want to move to that bill and finish it
this week. I cannot while this is still around with nothing being done
on it.
I alert everyone within the sound of my voice, if you don't like this
bill, come and amend it. Lay down an amendment and we will debate it,
we will table it, we will approve it, we will vote, and it won't be
passed.
But our judges, our U.S. Marshals, our U.S. attorneys need this. In
my heart I so understand the importance. I said this morning here, this
legislation will also help State courts, not only Federal courts. In
Washoe County, Reno, NV, a divorce proceeding was going forward. A very
rich man, quite frankly, didn't like what was happening in the divorce
proceeding, so this man killed his wife in her home--they were
divorced, his ex-wife. The child was in the house, and he took her in
the garage, slit her throat, killed her, took the car, drove to a
garage, took his hunting rifle, and from 200 yards from a parking lot
shot through a window and hit the judge.
That window should have had bulletproof glass in it. It didn't. This
bill will allow local jurisdictions to have the ability to obtain items
such as bulletproof glass.
We are living in a violent society. We have to, with our judiciary,
which is so independent and strong, do what we can to protect it. I was
in Ecuador with a congressional delegation. The President of that
country, when I told him a little story--and we were in the Embassy.
The President of Ecuador was standing next to me, and I told him about
the 2000 Presidential election.
I said: You know, that is an interesting election. President Bush got
less votes than the person he beat. The matter went to Florida where
there was so much confusion and consternation in counting the votes
there. The matter worked its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court decided that George Bush would be President of the United States.
The minute that was done, I said, in Ecuador: George Bush became my
President.
In our great country, which is ruled by law, not by men, there was
not a tire burned, a window broken, a demonstration held, because we
are a country of laws, and George Bush became everybody's President. I
did not like the decision of the Supreme Court; I disagreed with it.
But that is the law, that is the law of our country.
When I finished, the President of Ecuador said: I only wish we had a
court system like yours.
That is what this bill is all about, to try to have our court system
one that is as strong as it has been.
So if my friends on the other side of the aisle come here and say, as
they have done on a number of occasions: Well, we didn't have a chance
to offer an amendment--we finished this vote early today. They have had
all day to offer all of the amendments they wanted. Democrats had every
opportunity, if they do not like this bill, to offer an amendment to
change it. But we are going to complete this bill by Friday one way or
the other.
Now, Mr. President, it is possible under the rules that when we vote
on Friday on cloture on the bill--we are on the bill now. It could be
30 hours, but everyone here should understand, we are going to be in
session 30 hours after cloture is invoked.
We are not going to play around here, and think, well, we will finish
it next week. We are going to finish this bill this week, if it takes
Saturday or Sunday or whatever it takes, and everyone should understand
that.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the Senate at this time is
a bill to make our courts safer. This is an issue we take personally in
Chicago because in 2005, one of our most respected Federal judges had
her mother and husband killed in her home, murdered by an upset
individual who didn't like the way he was treated in a courtroom. He
stalked her family, invaded her home, killed her aging mother, and
husband, who was the love of her life. I know this judge because I
appointed her to the Federal bench. I have met her daughters and I know
her close friends in Chicago. I think about her every time the issue of
court security comes up. She is a wonderful woman who has devoted her
life to public service. She has put in the time that we expect from
real professionals. She has done her best to be fair and just. She
works hard. We owe her security in the workplace and security for her
family.
That is why Senator Obama and I introduced an appropriations bill
right after this happened, trying to put some money into the U.S.
Marshals Service to protect judges across the United States. That is
what this bill is all about. There is nothing partisan about this
legislation. There is nothing even controversial about it. This bill
should have been passed quickly, sent to the House and approved because
it makes a better effort to protect these judges in their homes, gives
more resources to U.S. marshals, puts stiffer penalties in for those
who harass and shoot at and kill those who serve us in the judiciary.
This is basic common sense. Instead of taking up this bill and passing
it quickly, as we should have to get it in place and to put the
protections in place, it has been slowed down.
One of our colleagues is exercising his rights under the Senate
rules. I said earlier I will fight for him to have the right to speak
it, on any bill, to offer

[[Page S4660]]

an amendment to it, to express himself, and to have the Senate decide
finally what the decision will be on his amendment. I respect his right
to do that. But instead we are going to slow this bill down for 2 days.
We will have amendments filed, six, and they are just going to sit on
the desk while the clock runs. Instead of moving to other legislation
which is critically important we will just sit here. That is unfair. I
don't think that is consistent with what the American people expect of
the Senate.
I have called on my colleagues, the one who has six amendments filed
and any who have other amendments, please bring them to the floor right
now, within the next hour. Let's start the debate right now. Let's set
them for a vote as quickly as possible. Let's stop these stall tactics
on bills as basic as this, protecting the personal security of judges
across America.
It is time for us to get down to business in the Senate. Look around
at all the empty chairs. Look for the person who sponsored the
amendments to this bill. You won't find him.
It is time for us to get down to business in the Senate. People
expect us to. This week has been a pretty horrible week when you look
at it. We came in here trying to pass a bill that would authorize
intelligence agencies across our Government to make America safer, 16
different intelligence agencies, a bipartisan bill, worked on long and
hard by Senator Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee,
and his staff, and Senator Bond and his staff. The bill was ready to
go, a bill which should have passed years ago, stopped in its tracks by
the Republican minority that said, no. Vice President Cheney objects to
a provision in the bill relative to the interrogation of prisoners;
imagine that he would raise that issue again. Therefore, all
Republicans, with maybe a couple exceptions, are going to stop debate
on the bill. That was strike 1.
Strike 2, a provision to amend the Medicare Prescription Drug Act so
that we could have more competition and lower prices for seniors and
disabled when they buy drugs. Some agree with it; some disagree. The
pharmaceutical industry hates it; it cuts into their profits. It was
worth a debate to see whether we could help seniors pay for their drugs
and lower prices. But, no, the Republican minority said: No, we are not
going to even debate that. We won't let you go to that. It is within
their power to stop us, and they did it again.
Now comes this bill for court security, and for the third strike this
week, the Republicans have said: No, we want to slow you down. We want
to run out the clock. We want to put amendments on the table and not
call them for consideration.
It is becoming increasingly clear what the Republican game plan is.
We have seen it this week on three pieces of legislation. We see it
with this bill. I have spoken to majority leader Senator Reid who spoke
moments ago. We have important business to do. In fact, we have
business which is very bipartisan. This bill, which has been slowed
down by one Republican Senator, has as cosponsors Senators Specter,
Cornyn, Collins, and Hatch, all Republican Senators. It is a bipartisan
bill. It is not even controversial. Why aren't we doing this? It isn't
as if there are other things going on on the Senate floor. We are
waiting on the Senators who want to stop or slow down this bill to
finally come and do their business. It is not too much to ask. I
understand we are all busy. From time to time we have to leave the Hill
to go to a committee meeting. I know I filed an amendment and waited a
while to call it. But now this Senator has had his time. He has had the
whole day. We should call up one amendment before we go home, just in
good faith, to indicate that this is really a serious effort, that
there is a substantive reason to slow down this important legislation.
We need to remind our colleagues of our responsibility to do the
people's business.

Iraq

I just joined the majority leader and others in meeting with the
President of the United States to talk about the war in Iraq. I am glad
we had this meeting. We didn't reach a new agreement or compromise. I
wish we had. We started a dialog, and that is important. There were
heartfelt emotions expressed at that meeting by many of us on both
sides of the issue, by the President, as well as by Senator Reid and
myself and many others. Speaker Pelosi was there. The majority leader
of the House, Steny Hoyer, was in attendance, as was Jim Clyborn, the
majority whip, and the Republican leadership. We talked about the war
in Iraq at length and where we need to go.
It is our belief that if we don't include language in the
appropriations bill which says to the Iraqis that we are not going to
stay there indefinitely, they are going to drag their feet forever when
it comes to making the political reforms that are necessary. We are
going to leave our soldiers stuck in the middle of a civil war. Mr.
President, 3,311 Americans have died in service to this country while
serving in Iraq. These are our best and bravest. They have given their
lives, and they continue to give their lives while we debate and delay.
It is time for us to move forward.
I suggested to the President in the moments that I had to express my
point of view, if he won't accept a timetable for starting to bring
American troops home, can't we at least hold the Iraqis to the
timetable that they have offered us for political reform? They have
missed deadline after deadline. They promised to bring their country
together. They promised to bring their army into a leadership that will
be effective. They have promised to try to resolve the old differences
from the Baath Party under Saddam Hussein. Promise after promise after
promise they have failed to keep while our soldiers fight and die every
single day.

Darfur

Despite the obvious differences from that meeting, there was one
hopeful sign. We started the meeting, and I began by praising President
Bush for delivering a speech today at the U.S. Holocaust Museum on the
subject of the genocide in Darfur. It was the appropriate venue for the
speech. The Holocaust Museum offers a powerful backdrop to consider the
horrors of genocide. I am glad the President made this speech. I
applaud him for making it. I had hoped that he would be a little bit
stronger, but I understand, speaking personally with the President,
that he wants to give new U.N. General Secretary Ban Ki-moon some time
to use his office effectively.
The President essentially today, though, by every measure, gave Sudan
a final warning, and it is about time. The President stated that within
a ``short period of time,'' to use his words, President Bashir of Sudan
must take the following steps: Allow the deployment of the full joint
African Union-United Nations peacekeeping force in the area of Darfur
where somewhere near 400,000 people have been murdered and over 2
million displaced. The President of Sudan must also end support for the
Jingaweit militia, reach out to rebel leaders, allow humanitarian aid
to reach the people of Darfur, and end his obstructionism. If he does
not, President Bush stated, the United States will respond.
First, the U.S. will tighten economic sanctions on the Sudanese
Government and the companies it controls. Second, the President will
also levy sanctions against individuals who are responsible for the
violence. Third, the U.S. will introduce a new U.N. Security Council
resolution to apply multilateral sanctions against the Government of
Sudan and impose an expanded arms embargo. This resolution will impose
a ban on Sudanese offensive military flights over Darfur.
Last fall the President's special envoy talked about a January 1st
deadline after which the United States would impose sanctions that
would cripple the Sudanese oil industry. That deadline is months behind
us, and the sanctions the President outlined are not as potent as they
might be in terms of truly hitting the oil industry as I hoped they
would.
The U.N. resolution and multilateral sanctions would be a major step
forward. If we don't see rapid progress from the Sudanese Government, I
urge the President to both introduce the U.N. resolution and to call
for a vote. Let's put the countries of the world on notice that they
must stand and be on the record on ending this genocide in Darfur.
As I said, I understand President Bush is responding to a special
request

[[Page S4661]]

from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who asked for some more time to
negotiate. All I can say is, I hope the Secretary General's faith that
real progress is being made is justified. At least on paper there has
been a breakthrough in the last few days. The Sudanese Government has
reportedly agreed to allowing 3,000 U.N. peacekeepers to deploy. But we
have had promises like this in the past and no action.
China, Sudan's biggest supporter and biggest customer for its oil,
has also started taking mutant, limited, but proactive steps in recent
weeks to convince the Sudanese to move forward on peacekeeping. China's
Assistant Foreign Minister recently toured refugee camps full of people
from Darfur who had fled their homes. That is not a typical stop on a
Chinese Government tour, a positive sign that China is not blind to the
human rights abuses going on in Sudan. China has reportedly played an
important role recently in urging the Sudanese Government to move
forward.
At the same time, however, China continues to oppose sanctions even
if Khartoum continues to obstruct peacekeeping. The Chinese Defense
Minister recently announced that China is interested in developing
military cooperation with Sudan, whatever that could possibly mean. As
for Sudan, while Khartoum has said it will allow deployment of 3,000
U.N. peacekeepers, a new U.N. report details how the Sudanese
Government is flying arms of heavy military equipment into Darfur.
This morning's New York Times has photographs of the Sudanese
painting their airplanes to appear to be United Nations aircraft and
African Union aircraft so that they can deceptively ship arms into this
region that will be used to kill innocent people. That is the
government we are dealing with in Khartoum. Sudan has promised to allow
3,000 U.N. peacekeepers and their equipment into Darfur. If it keeps
the promise this time, it would be a start, but what is needed, as the
President said today at the Holocaust Museum, is the full 21,000
combined U.N.-African Union force with the means and mandate to protect
the people of Darfur. The people of Darfur have waited long enough for
peace and security and the end of genocide. Now is the time to act.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am about to call up the managers'
amendment the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania and I have
worked on.
So, Mr. President, I send to the desk, on behalf of myself and
Senator Specter, an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is already a pending committee
amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is currently
pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is currently pending is a committee-
reported amendment to the bill.
Mr. LEAHY. Would that be the Feinstein-Kyl amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the language on page 20, starting at
line 22: ``Federal Judges For Courts Of Appeals.''
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The committee amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 896

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe the managers' amendment is at the
desk. I ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself and Mr.
Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 896.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make technical changes)

On page 5, line 5, strike ``any other court'' and insert
``the United States Tax Court''.
On page 5, line 10, after ``otherwise provide'' insert ``,
when requested by the chief judge of the Tax Court,''.
On page 5, line 13, strike ``person'' and insert
``persons''.
On page 5, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
(c) Reimbursement.--The United States Tax Court shall
reimburse the United States Marshals Service for protection
provided under the amendments made by this section.
On page 7, line 13, strike ``Sec.  118.'' and insert
``Sec.  119.''.
On page 9, strike line 1 and all that follows through the
matter following line 4 and insert the following:
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``119. Protection of individuals performing certain official duties.''.

On page 19, strike line 18 and insert the following:
(b) Construction.--For purposes of construing and applying
chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, including any
adjustment of insurance rates by regulation or otherwise, the
following categories of judicial officers shall be deemed to
be judges of the United States as described under section
8701 of title 5, United States Code:
(1) Bankruptcy judges appointed under section 151 of title
28, United States Code.
(2) Magistrate judges appointed under section 631 of title
28, United States Code.
(3) Territorial district court judges appointed under
section 24 of the Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 1424b),
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)).
(4) Judges retired under section 377 of title 28, United
States Code.
(5) Judges retired under section 373 of title 28, United
States Code.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by
On page 20, line 6, strike ``magistrates'' and insert
``magistrate judges''.
On page 20, line 9, strike ``MAGISTRATES'' and insert
``MAGISTRATE JUDGES''.
On page 20, strike lines 17 through 22 and insert the
following:

SEC. 505. FEDERAL JUDGES FOR COURTS OF APPEALS.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment, on behalf of myself and
Senator Specter, irons out a few remaining technical and jurisdictional
issues relating to our Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. We are
offering a managers' amendment that contains a few technical fixes,
including grammatical changes and proper references to ``magistrate
judges.''
This bipartisan amendment will make clear that additional protection
provided to the Tax Court by the Marshals Service shall be reimbursed
by the funds allocated to the Tax Court. We also clarify the
construction of which officers qualify as ``judges'' so that all
Federal judges are treated the same with regard to life insurance.
Senator Lieberman raised an objection with regard to section 505,
which provided for the reauthorization of the Ethics in Government Act.
I understand that Chairman Lieberman is currently working to
reauthorize that legislation, so Senator Specter and I have agreed to
remove it from our court security bill.
I note for my colleagues that no major policy changes relating to
improving the security that our Federal judges receive appear in this
managers' package. I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Specter, for working with me on this important legislation.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment--
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand there is a concern on the
other side of the aisle, and as the one who has the floor at this
point, I withhold that request and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S4662]]

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 891

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 891 be called up for its
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 891.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should
offset the cost of new spending)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--(1) the national debt
of the United States of America now exceeds
$8,500,000,000;000;
(2) each United States citizen's share of this debt is
approximately $29,183;
(3) every cent that the United States Government borrows
and adds to this debt is money stolen from future generations
of Americans and from important programs, including Social
Security and Medicare on which our senior citizens depend for
their retirement security;
(4) the power of the purse belongs to Congress;
(5) Congress authorizes and appropriates all Federal
discretionary spending;
(6) for too long, Congress has simply borrowed more and
more money to pay for new spending, while Americans want
Congress to live within its means, using the same set of
common sense rules and restraints Americans face everyday;
because in the real world, families cannot follow Congress's
example and must make difficult decisions and set priorities
on how to spend their limited financial resources; and
(7) it is irresponsible for Congress to authorize new
spending for programs that will result in borrowing from
Social Security, Medicare, foreign nations, or future
generations of Americans.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that Congress has a moral obligation to offset the cost of
new government programs, initiatives, and authorizations.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It says:
it is the sense of the Senate that we should not create new spending
programs when we have to borrow money to pay for them; that, in fact,
we ought to create priorities, that the priorities ought to be the same
type of priorities that everybody in this country has to face every day
with their own personal budget, that they cannot go out and use their
credit card without having a consequence.
This is a very simple amendment. I wish to read it thoroughly so
everybody understands what the amendment says. It says the following:

The Senate finds that--
(1) the national debt of the United States of America now
exceeds $8,500,000,000,000;
(2) each United States citizen's share of this debt--

from the oldest to the youngest--

is approximately $29,183;
(3) every [penny] that the United States Government borrows
and adds to this debt is money [that will be borrowed] from
future generations of Americans and from important programs,
including Social Security and Medicare on which our senior
citizens depend for their retirement security;

It also states:

(4) the power of the purse belongs to Congress;
(5) Congress authorizes and appropriates all Federal
discretionary spending;
(6) for too long, Congress has simply borrowed more and
more money to pay for new spending, while Americans want
Congress to live within its means, using the same set of
common sense rules and restraints [every American faces]
everyday; because in the real world, families cannot follow
Congress's example and must make difficult decisions and set
priorities on how to spend their limited financial resources.
. . .

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would this also include the hundreds of
billions of dollars we have borrowed so far for the war in Iraq?
Mr. COBURN. Absolutely. I agree with that.
Mr. LEAHY. Would this mean we would not be able to continue to borrow
money for the war in Iraq?
Mr. COBURN. This is a sense of the Senate. I would be happy for us
not to borrow money. We had $200 billion a year in waste, fraud, abuse,
and duplication outlined by the Federal Financial Management
Subcommittee last year. Appropriators refused to look at that, ways to
fund it. Mr. President, $200 billion--we could spend $100 billion on
the war and $100 billion to lower the deficit. I would be very happy to
apply this to everything we do. Every American has to do exactly the
same thing with their own budget every day.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I could continue for a moment, without
the Senator losing his right to the floor. I share his concern about
expenditures. I wish we were back in the days of President Clinton,
where we built up a surplus and started paying down the Federal debt;
other than what a Republican-controlled Congress voted for, which has
tripled the national debt.
Mr. COBURN. The Senator makes a great point. The realistic fact is,
we decreased the Federal debt $2 billion under the entire Clinton
administration. Mr. President, $2 billion. One year we had a true
surplus--a true surplus. That was the extent of it. And since then, and
before then, we have borrowed the future of our children away.
To continue, this resolution states:

(7) it is irresponsible for Congress to authorize new
spending for programs that will result in borrowing from
Social Security. . . .

I say to Social Security recipients, we borrowed $140 billion, last
year, from Social Security to pay for things we were not willing to
either trim down, make more efficient or eliminate in duplicative
programs.
We also are borrowing from foreign governments. That is affecting our
financial status. But most importantly, we are borrowing from future
generations of Americans.
The amendment states:

(b) . . . It is the sense of the Senate that Congress has a
moral obligation to offset the cost of new government
programs, initiatives, and authorizations.

It is very simple. A resolution has no impact of law. It says: We
agree, here are the rules under which we ought to operate. It does not
bind anybody. It says, if we are going to create new programs, we
either ought to find a way where we do not borrow to pay for them or we
ought to offset them by eliminating ineffective programs.
In 2001, as the Senator rightly noted, the Federal debt per person in
this country was $21,000. It has risen almost $10,000 since 2001. A lot
of people are quick to dismiss that figure, say it does not matter, we
only need to worry about the debt and the deficits as compared to the
economic growth in the size of our economy. A better rule of thumb is
how Government growth compares to the growth of wages and earnings.
Last fiscal year alone, the real Federal deficit increased in excess of
$300 billion--a debt our children and grandchildren will repay. So $7.2
billion was spent each day, or $84,000 was spent per second--per
second. If regular Americans must tighten their belts to live within
their means, the Federal Government should do the same instead of
authorizing new spending without offsetting similar spending.

Last year's interest costs alone were 8 percent of the total Federal
budget. In contrast, the average American spends about 5 percent of
their income as a percentage of their interest costs. The Federal
Government spent $226 billion on interest costs alone. According to the
Government Accountability Office, by the year 2030, interest will
consume 25 percent--25 percent--of the Federal debt.
So why do I bring this resolution to the floor? I bring the
resolution to the floor to make the point that when we authorize new
programs, we ought to find the money to pay for them and we ought to
reduce programs that aren't effective. We ought to look at the programs
that aren't accomplishing what we want them to, we ought to eliminate
duplicate programs where one works well and one doesn't work quite so
well and put the money into the one that works well so we get good
value for our dollars, and we ought to change the habits under which we
work so we can all accomplish what we would like to see.
I would like to see middle-income wages rise in this country at a
rate faster than they rise for the wealthy

[[Page S4663]]

class. I would like to see opportunity enhanced in this country. I
would like to see a balanced budget so we don't steal opportunity from
our children and our grandchildren. I don't think most people disagree
with that.
The reason we are out here debating this is I had a simple request:
Let's just find some deauthorization amendments so that when we bring
this new and very needed bill to the floor--and I agree and I think
everybody on the Judiciary Committee agrees this is a good bill; it is
going to pass--shouldn't we make some hard choices, just like every
family makes? Instead, we choose not to. We decide we will pass a new
bill. We will add $40 million a year to the cost to run the Government,
but we won't deauthorize anything that is out there that is not working
effectively. We won't fix the improper payments that are going on in
this country to the tune of about $40 billion--that is billion with a
``b.'' That is a thousand times more in improper payments than this
bill costs. We won't do the hard work that is necessary.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield to the Senator. By the way, I enjoyed
the Senator's speech on Darfur, and as the Senator from Illinois knows,
I agree with him very much. I thank him for his efforts on the genocide
that is now occurring in Darfur.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. He has been a stalwart
in the effort for Darfur.
I would like to read a sentence to the Senator from Oklahoma and ask
him what it means. It is a sentence from the underlying bill, which is
an authorization bill. It relates to section 105. Here is what it says:

In addition to any other amounts authorized to be
appropriated for the U.S. Marshals Service, there are
authorized to be appropriated for the U.S. Marshals Service
to protect the judiciary $20 million for each of the fiscal
years 2007 through 2011.

Now I would like to ask the Senator this: If we pass this bill
authorizing $20 million to be appropriated to the U.S. Marshals Service
to protect judges and then do not appropriate the money for that
purpose, how much money will come out of the Federal Treasury going to
the U.S. Marshals pursuant to this bill?
Mr. COBURN. None.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator another question.
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to answer it.
Mr. DURBIN. Isn't that what this is all about?
Mr. COBURN. No, it is not.
Mr. DURBIN. You were claiming a reauthorization----
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, here is what it is
about. The Senator from Illinois is a great advocate for those who are
less fortunate in this country. That is what this is about. It is about
changing the habits of the Senate.
I understand the appropriations process. I understand the
authorization process. Changing the habits says we are not going to
authorize new programs until we have done our homework on the programs
that aren't effective. That is the whole purpose of this amendment.
I understand the Senator's consternation with my desire. I understand
that most people inside Washington disagree. But I also understand that
most people outside of Washington say that if you increase spending--
authorized spending, not appropriated spending but authorized
spending--$40 million and never look at what you can deauthorize,
whenever we get to a surplus or when we get to a balanced budget, we
are going to spend more money. We are not going to make the hard
choices. That is exactly what happens. We can disagree with that but,
in fact, that is how we got an $8.9 trillion deficit. That is how we
ran a $300 billion-plus deficit this year. It is the process. It is the
process where we have decided that authorization has minimal power to
influence in this body and that appropriations has all power.

My point in making us debate this resolution on this bill and
bringing it up is to say: Let's start the process where we start
looking, as our oath charges us to do, at what doesn't work. Let's
bring a bill that authorizes something that is very good and bring a
bill that deauthorizes something that might get funding even though it
is not effective.
I will give an example: the COPS Program. It is a very good program.
It helps a lot of cities. Why shouldn't it be competitively bid? Why
shouldn't the cities with the most need get the help with their police
force rather than the cities whose Members put an earmark in for the
COPS Program, and any money that doesn't go to true need comes back to
the Federal Treasury? Why wouldn't we do that? Because that is hard
work. Because we might alienate one group as we do what is best for
everybody in America.
I understand the resistance to my efforts in challenging the way we
operate in the Senate, and I understand the opposition to my techniques
and methods in trying to accomplish that. However, as the Senator from
Illinois knows, if I am a champion for anything, I am a champion for
making sure we don't waste one penny anywhere. The best way to do that
is to start having good habits in how we arrange what we are going to
spend.
The fact is, it is very easy to find offsets in authorization because
we have three times as much authorized as we actually spend. So the
Senator's point is exactly true, but it doesn't direct us down to the
problem. If we get in the habit of making the decision we are going to
look at the programs that don't work, we are going to deauthorize the
programs that don't work, guess what we will do. We eventually might
get rid of the one $1 of every $5 on the discretionary side today that
is either waste, fraud, abuse, or duplication--$1 in $5. No one in this
body blows 20 percent of their personal budget on stuff that doesn't
mean anything or have any return. Yet in the discretionary budget,
everything except Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, that is
exactly what we do. It is exactly what we do. So why would we not say:
Let's change. Let's fulfill an obligation to two generations from us
now. I know what I am doing today isn't going to have a great impact on
the next appropriations bill or the next one after that or the one
after that, but 5 years from now, it might have an impact.
The point is, let's live like everybody else out there. Let's not
take the credit card and not look at the things we really should be
looking at. Let's do some extra work. Let's try to accomplish what is
best for everybody in this country, no matter what their economic
station in life, no matter what their background, no matter what their
position is. They all have a limited budget. They have to make choices.
They have to make choices, and they have to prioritize things. The
Senate doesn't; they just authorize another bill and never deauthorize
anything else.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I respect the Senator from Oklahoma. I
respect his fiscal conservatism. I respect his belief that our budget
deficit is a source of growing concern for all of us. He says we need
to start with good habits. I believe we need to start with the right
language. We need to understand what the Senator is asking us to
consider.
He started by saying that no family in America has the luxury the
Federal Government has of spending more than they bring in year after
year after year, which is what our deficit does at the Federal level.
No argument there. Let me use another family example. My wife and I
have raised three children. Occasionally, we have given them some
choices. A father could say to his son: You have $200 coming up for
your birthday. Here are the choices you can make: You can buy a new
suit--it wouldn't be a bad idea if you are going to go out for an
interview--or you can buy that bicycle you have had your eye on for a
long time that you want to take to college or I know you want to buy an
iPod. OK. Make a choice, but you only get $200. Make one of those
choices. I authorize your birthday gift to be spent on those three
things, but I will not appropriate--I will not give you the $200 for
all three, only for one. Three choices are on the table; you only get
to choose one.

[[Page S4664]]

Authorization bills put choices on the table, and then the
appropriations bills make a choice. It doesn't mean my son is going to
get $600 at the end of the day; he only gets $200. He has to make a
choice from the gifts I have authorized. The Senator from Oklahoma is
arguing that giving my son a choice of three things means he is going
to demand all three and get them. Wrong. It is a matter of discipline
when it comes to the appropriations process. The authorization process
is not the problem. We could authorize much more than we ultimately
spend, and we do, but in the final reckoning, the budget resolution
says you can only spend so much money. You can only spend $200 on your
birthday, I say to my son, even though you are being given three
authorized choices.

So when the Senator offers us this sense of the Senate, it sounds an
awful lot like pay-go, which is now the process we are following in the
Senate which says: If you want to spend some money, you have to find a
way to increase a tax or cut spending in other areas. It is pay as you
go. But the Senator from Oklahoma applies it to authorizations. It is a
different world. Confusing the two is not going to help us reach a
balanced budget; confusing the two creates confusion. Authorization is
not appropriation.
Earmarks can be appropriations. I have seen them. I have done them. I
have announced them in press releases. I am happy to do so to bring
money back to my State as best I can for good reasons, and I stand by
them and defend them. People challenge them. That is the nature of this
business as I consider it.
The bottom line is, if I am authorized to have three bridges in
Illinois, authorized to have three bridges in Illinois and only have
money for one bridge to be appropriated, I have to make a choice. The
people in my State have to make a choice. Life is about choices. It is
not about what I might choose; it is what I ultimately have to choose--
one bridge, one birthday gift. That is the appropriation. That is why
this is so different.
Ordinarily, this resolution, until it gets to its resolved sense-of-
the-Senate clause, is pretty easy to take. I might disagree with some
of the rhetoric here and there, but when you end by arguing that an
authorization is an expenditure of money, it is just not accurate. It
doesn't state what happens here in Congress.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. COBURN. Under your premise, only bills that are authorized get
funded, correct?
Mr. DURBIN. But all bills that are authorized do not get
appropriated.
Mr. COBURN. Except you are wrong. Last year, $220 billion of
unauthorized programs were appropriated.
If I may--will the Senator yield to me? I am happy to yield back in a
moment.
Mr. DURBIN. Sure.
Mr. COBURN. Let's carry your analogy a little further. What has
really happened is you give your son $200, but the mandate is--you are
going to spend $100 on a broken iPod or a used iPod, and you have $100
to buy down towards a good one, but you mandate that you spend $100 on
the bad one. That is the analogy. That is why we ought to deauthorize
programs that aren't working. That is why we ought to oversight
aggressively every area of the Federal Government.
Let me take one other exception, and then I will be happy to yield
back to the Senator.
Mr. DURBIN. Could I interrupt the Senator just to say this: This is
getting painfully close to a debate, which rarely occurs on the floor
of the Senate, so please proceed.
Mr. COBURN. I love it. I love to debate the Senator from Illinois.
I take a different tact, and the Senator knows that. I look at the
oath I took when I came to the Senate. It didn't say ``Oklahoma'' in
it; the Senator's didn't say ``Illinois.'' What the oath says is to
defend the Constitution of the United States and do what is best for
the country as a whole and in the long term.
Now, the Senator--and I admire him greatly--admitted that he plays
the game the way it is played. I am telling him that the American
people are ready for the game to be played a different way--a totally
different way. Part of that is looking at the authority under which we
allow money to be spent and recognizing that if we are going to
authorize something new, given the jam we are in, all you have to do is
talk to David Walker and look at what is going to happen in the next
two generations. Don't we have an obligation to look at the programs
that are not authorized?
Would the Senator answer this question: When was the last time he saw
a program deauthorized in this body?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to respond. I think the Senator has asked a
good question but not the right question. When we fail to appropriate
money for an authorized program, we are saying there is a higher
priority. We are saying that authorized program may not be as valid or
as valuable today as when it was enacted, and we make the choice. The
Senator referred to this, and I know he didn't mean to demean the
process in saying that I am ``playing the game.'' I don't think I am
``playing the game'' when I do the best I can to help the 12\1/2\
million people I represent. If the Senator ran into a problem--and
occasionally Oklahoma has a challenge--I will be there to help him,
too. That is the nature of it. We try to represent our States and also
do what is good for the Nation.
Secondly, if authorization is broken, as the Senator from Oklahoma
says, the obvious answer is, either don't appropriate money for it, or
when the appropriations bill comes to the floor, strike it and move the
money to another program. You have the right to do that as a Senator.
But the fact that the options or choices are out there doesn't mean
that every one of them is going to be honored and appropriated.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, if I might, the
thing that strikes me is the Senator is a wonderful debater, except
when he says the appropriators appropriating money on an authorized
program--that is great, except the American public needs to know that
22 percent of what we appropriate has never been authorized. Never.
So the fact is, we say authorization means something, but it means
nothing as far as the appropriations process goes. The real point of
this debate is how do we grab hold of this problem, this behemoth of a
problem that will face our children and grandchildren in the next 20 to
25 years, and do it in a way that will give us the greatest opportunity
for them?
My idea--and obviously many people disagree with it--is I think we
ought to start looking at every program. We ought to ask a couple of
questions: Can we measure its effectiveness? Is there a metric on it
that says this program is supposed to do this? Is there a metric there
so we can measure it? I am of the mind to say that if you cannot
measure something, you cannot manage it. Ninety percent of the programs
have no metric in the Federal Government, so we don't know if they are
working.
No. 2, is it a program that is still needed? We don't ever look at
the authorizing level. The Senator would have us defer everything to
appropriations, and that is what we actually do because 20 percent of
what we appropriate is not authorized and everything we authorize isn't
appropriated. So, obviously, authorizations are meaningless. So what we
should do is eliminate authorizing committees and just have
appropriations committees and we will all be on appropriations
committees.
Third, we should ask, is this still a legitimate function of the
Federal Government? When we ran a $300 billion-plus true deficit last
year and every State, save one, had big surpluses, should we not ask
the question: If we are doing things that really are not the Federal
Government's role to do, and we have a deficit and the States have a
surplus, should we not let them do it without our fingers taking 15
percent of the money as we send it back?
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield, I will make a constructive
suggestion, not to make a debate point or anything else, but to serve
his purposes. Can I suggest that instead of a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution, the Senator from Oklahoma, when an authorization bill comes
along, offer a sunset provision to be added to it to say that at a
certain period of time this authorization ends and has to be

[[Page S4665]]

reauthorized? Would that not serve his purpose?
Mr. COBURN. As a matter of fact, I did just that on the last 9/11
bill, and the Senator from Illinois voted against it. I voted to sunset
it. I actually offered the amendment that said we should sunset it and
look at it in 5 years, and the Senator from Illinois disagreed. He
thought, no, we should not do that. This Senator must admit that he
does have a constructive suggestion. I just wish he had voted that way
when we had the amendment up.
Mr. DURBIN. I was reluctant to do this, but I am going to refer to a
couple of votes of the Senator from Oklahoma. His amendment was to
sunset the entire Department of Homeland Security. Also, on two
separate occasions he voted against pay-as-you-go requiring 50 votes.
Here are two different rollcalls where the Senator's vote would have
made the difference.

Mr. COBURN. My amendment did not sunset the whole Department of
Homeland Security. It was the grants process.
Mr. DURBIN. That is what keeps our country safe.
Mr. COBURN. It is made up of how we dole money out to the States
rather than looking at the best interests of the country and looking at
the risk base for national security and homeland security. I am
basically for a true pay-go that says the options are two. One option
said the only option is, if we won't cut spending, we will raise taxes.
That is a pay-more, not a pay-go. It is pay more.
I am proud of those votes. I had consternation over it because I want
to try to hold to those things. But the pay-go as outlined two times in
the language was a vote for pay-more.
Will the Senator agree with me that there is waste, fraud, and abuse
in the duplication of the Federal Government.
Mr. DURBIN. Absolutely.
Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator agree that since we had a $300 billion-
plus deficit last year--$200 billion-plus if we weren't in the war in
Iraq--if we took that off the table, would it not make sense for us to
try to get rid of the waste, fraud, duplication, and abuse?
Mr. DURBIN. Of course. But I include the war in Iraq----
Mr. COBURN. It doesn't include the war. Let me finish my point.
Mr. DURBIN. I said I do include the war in Iraq.
Mr. COBURN. It was in there, but say we were not in the war and we
were still down to $200 billion--let's take that off the table. Say we
have a $200 billion deficit, and we can demonstrate from our
subcommittee hearings $200 billion a year in waste, fraud, and abuse.
Yet we did nothing about it. We did nothing.
I have enjoyed my debate with the Senator from Illinois. I ask that
we vote on the question at hand. I thank him for his kindness.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Specter may have a
comment he wants to make. I respect the Senator's view on the budget,
though we disagree. We both understand the seriousness of the deficit.
I don't think authorizations are the problem. For that reason, I will
vote against this amendment. When we vote on a pay-go amendment, I hope
you can join us.
Mr. COBURN. As long as it is not a pay-more amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Frankly, it has to include taxes instead of spending.
I will yield the floor to the Senator from Pennsylvania, if he is
prepared to speak. If not, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have an amendment in my hand by Senator
John Ensign. I will send it to the desk. I ask unanimous consent to set
aside the pending amendment and to have this called up.
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I may, we are about to
have a vote in connection with the amendment of the Senator from
Oklahoma. If we are going to start talking about amendments for a
couple of hours and bring up another one, we are not going to get
anywhere on the bill for court security, which has been passed twice by
this body. So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Objection is heard.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, a great deal of what the Senator from
Oklahoma has offered, I agree with; that is, that we ought to live
within our means as a society. I have consistently supported
constitutional amendments for balanced budgets, to require the Congress
to live within its means, like States, cities, and we personally must
live within our means. I have supported the line-item veto. I think the
transparency for awards, also known as earmarks, will be an improvement
of the current system.
I agree with what the Senator from Oklahoma has said about the
problems created by the national debt and by the deficit. But the
sense-of-the-Senate conclusion, I think, goes further than we can,
realistically. The last paragraph says:

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress has a moral
obligation to offset the cost of new government programs,
initiatives, and authorizations.

When you talk about living within our means and a balanced budget, in
the line-item veto, I would agree with that; but when you talk about
offsetting the authorizations, that goes to a point that I think goes
too far because the legislative process has two steps. One step is the
authorization and the second step is the appropriation.
It is common practice to have authorizations that will be
substantially beyond what an appropriation will be. The real decisive
factor is what money is appropriated, what money is spent, not what
moneys can be authorized. But in structuring programs and
authorizations, it is the common practice to put a figure in that is
larger than may be used, but it is there for purposes of contingency,
if more should be used, so that the real critical factor is the
appropriations process.
I cannot agree with what the Senator from Oklahoma seeks to
accomplish on tying the hands of the authorizers because of the
established practice that I think is appropriate. For that reason, I
regrettably cannot support what my colleague has offered, although I
think the underlying purpose is very valid.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if this was our Department of Justice
authorization bill, these kinds of amendments could certainly be
considered.
We are talking about a court security bill which has passed this body
twice, which is urgently needed. I am trying to keep extraneous matters
off it and have them offered on legislation where it is more
appropriate.

Amendment No. 896

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and that the managers' package be considered and
agreed to, and we revert to the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 896) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 891

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my understanding is the managers' package
has been agreed to and we are back on the Coburn amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 896 is agreed to, and the Coburn
amendment is pending.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I don't want to surprise my colleague
from Oklahoma, I will in a moment move to table his amendment. Again,
if this was a DOJ authorization bill--and I have presented and passed
in this body DOJ authorization bills before--then if he wanted to bring
the amendment up, we could vote it up or down. This is a different
bill. We want it to be a clean bill.
Therefore, Madam President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.

[[Page S4666]]

Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 38, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.]

YEAS--59

Akaka
Alexander
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--38

Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kohl
Kyl
Martinez
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Sununu
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter

NOT VOTING--3

Johnson
Lott
McCain
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak in
morning business.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Iowa,
my dear friend, I have to file a cloture motion. It will take me just a
minute.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Surely.

cloture motion

Mr. REID. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
107, S. 378, the Court Security Improvement bill.
Robert Menendez, Sherrod Brown, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid,
Ron Wyden, Debbie Stabenow, Patrick Leahy, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Ted Kennedy, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, Frank
Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, Robert P.
Casey, Patty Murray, Jay Rockefeller.

____________________