[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 660
__________
MAY 3, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-108
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-116 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
MAXINE WATERS, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JERROLD NADLER, New York F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel
Michael Volkov, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 3, 2007
Page
THE BILL
H.R. 660, the ``Court Security Improvement Act of 2007''......... 3
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security..................... 1
The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 23
WITNESSES
The Honorable Robert M. Bell, Chief Judge, Maryland Court of
Appeals
Oral Testimony................................................. 25
Prepared Statement............................................. 27
The Honorable John F. Clark, Director, United States Marshals
Service, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Oral Testimony................................................. 35
Prepared Statement............................................. 36
The Honorable David Bryan Sentelle, Chair, Judicial Conference
Committee on Judicial Security, Washington, DC
Oral Testimony................................................. 41
Prepared Statement............................................. 43
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record........................ 59
COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT
OF 2007
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert
C. ``Bobby'' Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Scott, Forbes, Coble, and Lungren.
Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief Counsel;
Gregory Barnes, Majority Counsel; Caroline Lynch, Minority
Counsel; and Veronica L. Eligan, Professional Staff Member.
Mr. Scott. The Subcommittee will now come to order.
I am pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on H.R.
660, the ``Court Security Improvement Act of 2007.''
This is a bill that was introduced by Chairman Conyers,
Representative Gohmert from Texas, and myself back in January
of this year. The legislation is identical to a court security
bill that was introduced in the Senate and recently passed by
that body by unanimous vote.
The importance of judicial security has been underscored by
recent murders: the family members of a Chicago Federal judge
in 2005, and the killings less than 2 weeks later of a State
court judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff's deputy in an
Atlanta courthouse.
Surprisingly, these acts of violence also make their way to
our Nation's highest court, whereby Supreme Court justices as
of late have also been the intended targets of violence,
threats and other forms of intimidation.
For example, in March of last year, the public learned
about death threats made against Supreme Court justices back in
2005. More than a few months ago it was revealed that home-
baked cookies infused with rat poison had been mailed to all
nine justices in 2005. And, according to media reports, Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor was quoted as saying, ``Each one contained
enough poison to kill the entire membership of the Court.''
These acts of violence, along with numerous others, led to
the introduction of H.R. 660, which, among other things, seeks
to improve judicial security for court officers and safeguards
judges and their families at home. The legislation achieves
these objectives by making several noteworthy changes in
existing law.
For example, it calls for an increase in consultation
between the U.S. Marshals Service and the Judicial Conference
of the United States to ensure that the Conference's views on
security requirements for the judicial branch are taken into
account when determining staffing levels, setting priorities
for security programs, and allocating judicial security
resources.
In addition, to guaranteeing that the Marshals Service will
have adequate resources to carry out their newfound
responsibilities, the legislation authorizes an additional $20
million per year over the course of the next 5 years for the
purpose of hiring new marshals to investigate threats and to
provide protective details to judges and assistant U.S.
attorneys.
The measure authorizes $100 million in grants to States and
local government to expand and create witness protection
programs that will have as their primary focus preventing
threats, intimidation and retaliation against witnesses of
victims of violent crimes.
In closing, I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses on the aforementioned set of issues, as well as their
thoughts or concerns that may relate to any other topic that
may fall within the scope of this bill.
With that said, it is now my pleasure to recognize my
colleague from Virginia, the Honorable Randy Forbes, who
represents Virginia's 4th Congressional District, for his
comments.
[The bill, H.R. 660, follows:]
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Chairman Scott.
And thank all the witnesses for being here. We look forward
to your testimony today.
I appreciate your holding this legislative hearing, Mr.
Chairman, on H.R. 660, the ``Court Security Improvement Act of
2007.''
In the last few years, we have seen unprecedented levels of
violence involving judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, law
enforcement officers and courthouse employees who play a
critical role in our judicial system.
The killing of family members of United States District
Judge Joan Lefkow and the brutal slayings of Judge Roland
Barton, his court reporter, a deputy sheriff and a Federal
officer in Atlanta, and the cold-blooded shootings outside the
Tyler, Texas, courthouse all underscore the importance of
protecting judges, courthouse personnel, witnesses, law
enforcement and their family members.
This is a problem that is threatening the very integrity of
our judicial system. According to the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts, there are almost 700 threats a year
made against Federal judges. And in numerous cases, Federal
judges have had security details assigned to them for fear of
attack by members of terrorist associates, violent gangs, drug
organizations, and disgruntled litigants.
Federal prosecutors and defense counsel face similar
threats and challenges. The problem of witness intimidation and
threats has continued to grow, particularly at the State and
local level, where few, if any, resources are available to
protect witnesses, victims and their families.
The bill before the Subcommittee includes some of the
judicial security provisions which were passed last Congress as
part of H.R. 1751, the ``Secure Access to Justice and
Courthouse Protection Act,'' which passed the House 375 to 45,
and H.R. 4472, the ``Child Safety and Violent Crime Reduction
Act,'' which passed by a voice vote. Unfortunately, the Senate
did not enact H.R. 1751, despite the strong pressure to do so.
While I support H.R. 660 because it includes provisions we
already passed, I am concerned that the bill omits protection
of a key player in the judicial system: our Nation's law
enforcement officers.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 55 law
enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the United
States in 2005. The previous year, 57 officers were killed in
the United States. In the 10-year period from 1996 to 2005, a
total of 575 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed
in the line of duty in the United States, 102 of whom were
killed in ambush situations, in entrapment or premeditated
situations. If not for the advent of bulletproof vests, an
additional 400 officers would have been killed over the last
decade.
More than 57,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in
2005, or one in every 10 officers serving in the United States.
And the numbers have been increasing since 1999, even as other
crime has decreased or held steady.
As the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police
noted, ``There is less respect for authority in general and
police officers specifically.'' The predisposition of criminals
to use firearms is probably at the highest point in our
history.
If we are going to protect judges, courthouse personnel and
witnesses, we need to protect the most important witness, in
many cases: the police officer. We can pass all the laws we
want, but without effective law enforcement there will be no
trial and no justice.
H.R. 1751 included an important provision to protect the
safety of our law enforcement officers, and these provisions,
unfortunately, are not in this bill. I know that my colleague,
Representative Gohmert, is working on legislation to address
law enforcement officers' concerns, and I am hopeful that the
Subcommittee will address these important issues.
We must continue to work together in a bipartisan effort to
ensure that our judicial system operates in a safe environment.
Judges, witnesses, courthouse personnel and law enforcement
must not have to face threats and violence when carrying out
their duties.
At the State and local level, there is dire need to provide
basic security services in the courtroom and for witnesses, and
H.R. 660 represents a good first step in that direction. But,
in my view, there is more we can and should do to address this
problem.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's hearing. I yield
back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Forbes.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here to help us
consider the important issues that are currently before us.
Our first witness will be Chief Judge Robert M. Bell. He
began his tenure on the bench in 1975 as a District Court judge
for the city of Baltimore, Maryland. He next served as a judge
in a Circuit Court for Baltimore until 1984, when he was
appointed the judge of the Court of Special Appeals in
Maryland. In 1991 he was appointed to the Court of Appeals in
Maryland, and 2 short years later he was elected to serve as
Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the State's
highest court.
He is the only active judge in the State to have served at
least 4 years at all four levels of Maryland's judiciary, and
the first African-American to be named the State's chief
jurist. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Morgan
State Universitye and his J.D. from Harvard University Law
School.
Next we have John F. Clark, the current director of the
U.S. Marshals Service. Prior to his employment as director, Mr.
Clark served as U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of
Virginia, which includes Alexandria, Richmond and Norfolk,
Virginia. Throughout his career, he held numerous senior
management positions in the Marshals Service, including serving
as chief of the Internal Affairs Division and chief of the
International Fugitive Investigation Division. Before joining
the U.S. Marshals, he was employed by the United States Capitol
Police and the U.S. Border Patrol. He holds a Bachelor of
Science degree from Syracuse University.
Finally, we will have Judge David B. Sentelle. He was
appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. He also serves as chairman of the
United States Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial
Security. Throughout his career, he has held numerous positions
in the legal profession, including serving as an assistant U.S.
attorney in Charlotte, North Carolina, and teaching at the law
schools of the University of North Carolina and Florida State.
He had the honor of serving as the presiding judge of the
Special Division of the Court of Appointment of Independent
Counsel. He is an honors graduate from the University of North
Carolina Law School.
Each witness has introduced a written statement already,
which will be made a part of the record in its entirety, so I
would ask that each witness summarize your testimony in 5
minutes or less.
To help you stay within the time, there is a timing device
right in front of us. When 1 minute is left, the yellow switch
will go on and, finally, to red when the 5 minutes are up.
We will begin with Judge Bell.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT M. BELL,
CHIEF JUDGE, MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS
Judge Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Forbes
and Members of the Committee. It is my privilege to be here
today to provide testimony for consideration by this
Subcommittee, and I do so on behalf of the Conference of Chief
Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators.
The Conferences' membership consists of the highest
judicial officers and State court administrators in each of the
50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and the territories of
American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands.
The National Center for State Courts serves as the
secretariat for the two conferences, and it provides supportive
services to State court leaders throughout the country,
including original research, consulting services, publications
and national education programs.
I am pleased that here today with me are Jose Dimas and Kay
Farley of the National Center staff. I mention them because
they will be providing you with any follow-up information that
you may need, any answers to questions that I am not able to
provide.
Ours is a democratic republic, the foundation for which is
the rule of law. The rule of law, of course, requires a strong
and independent judiciary. And that, of course, depends in turn
upon full and fair dispensation of justice, as well as the full
and complete access to justice by the citizens. And if those
two things are produced, it will result in the citizens having
trust and confidence in the courts, the judiciary.
To be sure, the Federal courts are critical actors and must
obtain complete resources for the benefit of which they will be
able to pursue their function. But it cannot be gainsaid that
so, too, are the State courts. They touch huge numbers of
people, indeed 95 or more percent of the total litigation in
the country.
We believe that Congress has an opportunity now to make an
important and tangible difference in improving the safety of
our courts and upholding the fundamentals of our democratic
society.
Today thousands of judges, prosecutors, public defenders,
law enforcement officers, court personnel, court reporters,
jurors, witnesses, victims, members of the general public, went
into a courtroom. They came and they come for one purpose: They
come to seek that full and fair justice, and they seek it in a
safe and a neutral forum.
It is critical, indeed vital, that we ensure the public's
ability to resolve their disputes, to receive that justice, to
present their evidence and expect judges to rule solely on the
basis of the law, uninfluenced by outside influences or by
intimidation. To accomplish this, we must provide a forum free
from fears, threats and violence.
It cannot be doubted that people will hesitate or refuse to
bring their disputes to courts if a likely consequence is
intimidation or physical harm. Judges and jurors, of course,
cannot pursue the trust if they or their families are
threatened.
We have provided in the written statement some examples
from our constituents, States such as Alaska, Arizona,
California, New Mexico, Maryland, about incidences of threats
to judges. And I urge your consideration of that.
With those things in mind, we are urging that you consider,
in addition to the provisions already in the bill, including
provisions that would create a new Federal grant program
specifically targeted to assess and enhance State court
security, a program that would assist States to conduct
assessments and implement court security improvements deemed
necessary based on those assessments.
We ask that the highest State court in each of these States
and territories be eligible to apply for the funds. Federal
funds are, of course, valuable seed money for State courts.
We are also asking that you ensure that State and local
courts are eligible to apply directly for discretionary Federal
funding. State and local courts have not been able to apply
directly for some Department of Justice Administrative programs
because of the definition of unit of government. The result of
this language is that the State and local court is not able to
apply directly for discretionary funds but must ask an
executive agency to submit an application on their behalf.
As you provide oversight role to the DOJ and as grant
programs are revisited, we ask that the definition of eligible
entities be broadened so that State and local courts can apply
directly for discretionary Federal grant funds.
And, finally, we ask that you ensure that State courts are
included in the planning for disbursement for Federal funding
administered by State executive agencies. Statutory language
for grant programs that impact the justice system should
include specific language requiring consultation and
consideration of State court needs. We have provided some
language we would urge you to include, in the written
testimony. And I will not repeat it here.
State courts of this country welcome the Subcommittee's
interest in the security of the courts. We look forward to
working with the Subcommittee to develop legislation that
addresses State court security needs and takes into account the
varied needs of the State courts of this country.
We commend the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and
for recognizing the national interest in ensuring that our
judiciary and courts must operate in a safe and secure
environment.
We thank you.
[The prepared statement of Judge Bell follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert M. Bell
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Clark?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. CLARK, DIRECTOR, UNITED
STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Forbes
and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before
you today to answer your questions on H.R. 660, the ``Court
Security Improvement Act of 2007.''
I am also pleased and honored to appear today and be seated
between two distinguished Members of the judiciary.
This bill, among its many provisions, authorizes needed
additional resources for the Marshals Service to continue to
meet our judicial security responsibilities.
It would also allow us to enhance the services of the
Office of Protective Intelligence, our core operational unit
charged with analyzing and disseminating threat information so
that all threats can be mitigated before harm comes to members
of the judicial family.
Resources would also go to hiring more Deputy U.S.
Marshals, not only to investigate threats, but to provide for
the protection so often needed for judges, prosecutors and
their families.
This bill also helps judges better protect themselves by
allowing them to continue to redact personal information from
their financial disclosure reports.
The bill acts to defer threats by adding more Federal
penalties for threatening court officials.
The bill also finally closes a long-existing loophole that
did not classify certain weapons as dangerous weapons
prohibited inside a courthouse.
Passage of this legislation would go a long way in helping
the Marshals Service provide the absolute best security for our
judicial families. And I appreciate you giving me the
opportunity to provide whatever input I can to assist in this
process.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John F. Clark
Mr. Scott. Judge Sentelle?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVID BRYAN SENTELLE, CHAIR,
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL SECURITY, WASHINGTON,
DC
Judge Sentelle. I, too, want to thank the chair and Ranking
Member of the Committee and the Members of the Committee. As a
resident of Virginia, I especially thank the Chairman and the
Ranking Member.
And I must say it is good to see my long-time friend--I
shouldn't say old friend, but certainly long-time friend and
fellow Tar Heel, Congressman Coble. We were assistant U.S.
attorneys together 30-and-some-odd years ago.
I am very honored to be here.
In the last year of his life, Chief Justice Rehnquist
became very concerned about judicial security by reason of the
kinds of incidents to which the Chairman alluded. He created a
new committee with the responsibility for judicial security,
which had previously been adjunct to the Facilities Committee.
I was honored when he made me the chair just before he passed
away.
During the past year and a half, or almost a year and a
half, we have made great strides, working with and through the
U.S. Marshals Service, in obtaining for every judge in the
country the opportunity to have home intrusion detection
devices. I called those burglar alarms before I got on the
committee. [Laughter.]
Now I have that available for every judge in the country.
Working with and through the U.S. Marshals Service, we have
taken the technology developed for fugitive pursuit and
analysis and helped the Marshals Service in adapting it for use
also in support of judicial threat investigation.
All of this has been with the priceless support of the
legislative branch in giving us what we need to get these
things done. Our presence here doesn't mean we are complaining
about anything going on in the legislative and executive
branches. It is just that we think we can all work together to
do more.
For example, in 101, the Consultation Provision, our asking
that the Marshals Service and Judiciary be required to consult
does not mean we are not consulting now. Director Clark and I
are on the phone or in person together, sometimes several times
a week, sometimes for days at a time, and in remote locations
and technical centers in other parts of the country.
What we want to do is ensure by statute that this kind of
relationship can be continued no matter who is the director of
the Marshals Service or who is the chair of the Judicial
Security, so that each branch can rely on the other in the
future without having to hope that personal relationships hold
up.
Similarly, the redaction is working well now, but we do
want to urge the Committee and the Congress to continue the
redaction authority. That is to say, when judges file financial
statements, we don't like the disgruntled litigant of the sort
who has threatened or shot judges in the past to be able to
look down on that report and see where the judge's children go
to school or where the judge's spouse is employed.
We do want to provide the kind of information the public
needs in order to ask for refusal from litigation, but we do
not want the judges to endanger themselves or their families by
the information that is disclosed.
And then on another front of security is the harassment to
which judges, jurors and witnesses have been subjected in some
parts of this country by groups that are anti-government in
general, anti-courts in particular, who go into State courts
and file fictitious liens against the property of judges,
prosecutors, jurors, in order to threaten and harass, much in
the same way that identity theft works.
And so, we are asking for an expansion of the already-
beneficial authority that exists to punish the filer of the
false lien, the threatener of that sort against judicial and
other courthouse security.
So thanking the Congress for what you have done for us
already and thanking the Marshals Service for their continuing
good efforts and good results in judicial security, we would
hope for this judicial security improvement bill to be enacted
into law.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Judge Sentelle follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable David Bryan Sentelle
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Judge.
I want to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Lungren. The gentleman from North Carolina, who has already
been identified, is also joining us today.
We will now begin the rounds of questions from the Members,
5 minutes each, and I will begin.
Judge Sentelle, you mentioned fictitious liens. I thought
we passed legislation fixing that a couple of years ago?
Judge Sentelle. You did. You did. And we thank you for what
you have done.
This expands its coverage a bit as far as other court
personnel involved, and it enhances the penalty so that the
persons that are involved--there is a greater incentive not to
commit this under the bill than what has been done in the past.
Congress has already helped us a great deal on that. We are
asking for a refinement. As I say, we are not dissatisfied with
anything the Congress or the executive are doing now. We just
want to get all of us together to do things a little better.
Mr. Scott. No problem with being dissatisfied. Everybody
else is dissatisfied.
Judge Sentelle. Well, for once in my life I am not all that
dissatisfied. [Laughter.]
Mr. Scott. You mentioned financial disclosures. We passed
those stop-gap measures a couple of months ago.
Judge Sentelle. Yes, and what we want to do is extend the
time on that to make it--we would like for it to be a permanent
authority.
Mr. Scott. Is there anything in that little stop-gap
measure that we left out? Did we do everything we needed to do?
Judge Sentelle. Other than the time element, I don't recall
anything. I would like the opportunity to take that for the
record and consult with the administration office staff and
give you a more detailed answer later.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Appendix for information provided by the Honorable David
Bryan Sentelle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Scott. That will be fine.
Judge Bell, if States had more money for courtroom
security, what would you do with it?
Judge Bell. What we are trying to do now is to upgrade the
security in the courthouses throughout the State. We have taken
it upon ourselves in Maryland, for example, to start the
process.
But if we had the money, we could put into place some
security measures that would ensure that we would capture all
of the bad things that come into the courthouse, keep them out.
We would then be able to start some programs which could
perhaps help us in protecting witnesses and protecting others
who would be involved in the process of the case.
Mr. Scott. You also mentioned assessing security. I would
assume that as you are building courthouses from time to time
or trying to renovate them, how criminals are transferred,
where jurors are and that kind of thing----
Judge Bell. Those kinds of things.
Also making sure that our buildings are up to modern
standards. We have a lot of old courthouses in Maryland. I am
sure that is the case all over the country. We have a lot of
substandard buildings. They need a lot of improvement. We need
to do improvement with an eye toward security needs of that
particular court.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Clark, when witnesses are threatened, does
that come under your bailiwick?
Mr. Clark. Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scott. What do you do to protect witnesses? You are
just in Federal court?
Mr. Clark. Yes. I would address it from the Federal court
level. And, of course, we handle and manage the Federal Witness
Protection Program, which, of course, in a broad context is
used in more of a prosecutorial role.
But also, in many of our high-threat trials or high-threat
cases, where witness intimidation may be a factor, we make
every effort to make sure those witnesses are protected when
they are coming to or from court or when they are in court or
appearing in court. And so, we would very much appreciate the
support that this bill offers to enhance anything to do with
witness protection and prevent any intimidation.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Forbes?
Mr. Forbes. Thank you.
I would like to echo what the Chairman said, first of all,
by thanking you all for what you do, Judge Bell and Judge
Sentelle, for your work, and, Mr. Clark, for the great job that
the marshals do. I never want to miss an opportunity to thank
you and tell you how much we appreciate that.
As we talked about, we have a lot of threats. They come in
a lot of different sizes, different packages. We are concerned
about the individuals that most of us in laymen's terms would
just say are crazy individuals and, you know, very
unpredictable.
But how would you break it down in your threats between an
individual threat and the ones that Judge Sentelle kind of
alluded to, that might be organizational-type threats that
might expand their capability, especially in gangs and
organizations like that? Do you see that number growing? Is
that a major concern? Because that is something that seems like
it is even more difficult to maybe get a handle on.
Mr. Clark. Yes, Congressman, you are correct. We see a wide
variety of threateners out there.
Last year, in fiscal year 2006, the Marshals Service
investigated and reviewed over 1,100 threats to the judiciary
and U.S. attorneys, assistant U.S. attorneys and others who are
involved in the judicial process. And all of those threats come
in various sort of shapes and sizes.
We have seen trends where some individuals, to use that
term, are a little mentally disturbed or, as you say, crazy.
But they are nonetheless making threats that we have to
investigate.
We also see more organized threats from gang members, often
members of the same gang as those being prosecuted in a Federal
court and who have the capability and the means to certainly
pull off a threat if they wanted to. And so we take them all
very seriously and we look at them and try to mitigate them as
quickly as we can.
But there is quite a range of threateners. Just as an
example, just this last week in our Houston office, deputy
marshals went to interview an individual who had threatened a
Federal judge there in Houston, and in the context of
interviewing the suspect, he came to the door with a weapon in
hand. Fortunately, our deputies were able to retreat and were
able to fire a shot to hit the suspect and be able to handle
that confrontation, fortunately, very successfully without any
harm to our deputy marshals.
But that individual had been deemed by somebody a little
bit mentally unstable, who had threatened, in addition to
judges, I understand, Members of Congress. So we have an
individual out there who says and does these things and,
obviously, by what he did to our deputy marshals, with the
intent to possibly carry them out.
So there is a wide range of individuals out there.
Mr. Forbes. The Chairman raised concerns about buildings
and structures and what we need to do in there, but one of my
concerns for all of you is your families as well and when you
are outside those buildings.
How do you track these individuals? When you get an
individual that you think could be a potential threat, do we
have the resources to be able to track them and make sure that
we are monitoring what they are doing so that they are not an
actual threat to perhaps the families?
Mr. Clark. Yes, Congressman. We have made substantial
improvements to how we collect, analyze and track data and
threateners--the individuals themselves. We have enhanced our
Office of Protective Intelligence and the data-collection means
that we use there to track them, to make sure that those who
gave threatened a judge in previous years, can be tracked. If
they threaten somebody again in a subsequent year, we would
know about that and have a case history on that individual.
So we want to make sure we are doing a good job to keep
records on it and to maintain that tracking system. We are
doing that very successfully.
We are also working with our State and local counterparts
to see if we can better track those individuals who threaten
State and local judges as well, so that we can share that
information and be able to know who is threatening who out
there.
We found that, in some cases, those individuals who had
threatened a State judge, for example, also might threaten a
Federal judge. And so, we want to be able to connect the dots
and be able to know who out there in the world is doing that.
Mr. Forbes. Judge Bell, my time is about up, but if you
perhaps would have someone on your staff get back to me. How
uniformly do the State courts implement the 10 essential
elements for courtroom safety and security that your
organization has developed?
And can you point to any specific outcomes to help us in
which a threat or action was deterred as a result of this plan?
That could be useful information if you could supply it to us.
And, once again, thank you all for your time.
Judge Bell. We will be happy to do that. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Scott. I will now recognize Judge Sentelle's old friend
from North Carolina, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Coble.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, you didn't need to emphasize the
word ``old.'' [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the good job the two
Virginians are doing on this Subcommittee, you and Mr. Forbes.
It is good to have the panel with us, especially the
alumnus from the Great Smoky Mountains, Judge Sentelle. Good to
see you again.
Mr. Clark, a friend of mine once told me that the success
of being a popular speaker was to practice the ``three be's":
be bold, be brief, be gone. [Laughter.]
Now, I am not suggesting that Judge Sentelle and Judge Bell
abused the 5-minute rule, but you gave new meaning to brevity
in this place, and we embrace that very warmly. [Laughter.]
Gentlemen, as you all know, the House approved the
Committee of Judicial Security provisions during the last
Congress. I understand that several key provisions from that
bill have been omitted from the bill before us. They include
allowing law enforcement, Federal prosecutors and judges to
carry firearms, and increasing penalties for assaulting,
killing or kidnapping a Federal officer.
While I supported all of these provisions in the 109th
Congress, I would like to hear your thoughts on why or why not
permitting law enforcement and other courthouse officials to
carry firearms would help secure our courthouses.
Let me start with you, Judge Sentelle, and work to my left.
Judge Sentelle. Congressman Coble, the Judicial Conference
of the United States has taken a position in favor of the
legislation allowing judges and some others to carry firearms.
We have not retreated from that position.
However, we hope that this bill now in front of Congress
will not be bogged down by provisions that might be more
controversial than what is in there now. We would rather see
that dealt with in a separate bill, where the question could be
examined by itself without clouding the provisions on which
there might be more consensus.
But, no, we have not retreated from that position. The
Conference still stands in support of the legislation you are
talking about.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Clark?
Mr. Clark. Congressman, it would be my position that, at
least speaking from the Federal system, in the courthouse
itself and in the courtroom, often there are deputy marshals
who are armed. There are court security officers who are armed.
And on any given day there are a few folks, at least, in every
courtroom who are carrying firearms.
So while we would certainly see the benefit perhaps of
having judges and others that might be armed, we feel like
there is an adequate armed presence now in the courtroom and
would not necessarily think that adding to that number would
necessarily benefit security.
We would also say that, I guess, in terms just of the
logistics of carrying this out, to make sure that the
individuals would be qualified with their weaponry and able to
use them, that we would want to work with the Judicial
Conference to sort of think out and talk out how that could be
done.
With regard to raising the penalties for those who threaten
judges or others in the law enforcement realm, I would
certainly support that. I think any time we can deter
effectively those who threaten the judiciary by raising the
penalties and sending a good message that we are very serious
about anybody who threatens a Federal judge, would be well
worth it. So I would certainly support that.
Mr. Coble. Judge Bell?
Judge Bell. Yes, sir. By the way, I suppose I shouldn't say
this, but I will. I suppose that one of the reasons that Judge
Sentelle and I went on a little longer is that we are both from
North Carolina. [Laughter.]
Mr. Coble. Judge, I was not admonishing. I don't dare
admonish judges. [Laughter.]
Judge Bell. The position about which you speak is one that
would have to be taken by the Government Relations Committee of
the Conference of Chief Justices and the COSCA. I am not aware
that we have taken a position on it nor that it was necessary
to do so for this bill.
Last time, I do know that we were in favor of a court
security bill. But, as Judge Sentelle mentioned, I don't want
any discussions about provisions where there may be some
controversy to affect the positive action on this bill.
Now, we can, if you would like, we can have the Government
Relations Committee look at the issue and provide you with
information with regard to it.
Mr. Coble. That would not be a bad idea.
Chairman, let me ask one more question.
What prompted my saying this, Mr. Scott and Mr. Forbes, is
a Federal prosecutor from my district back home told me
recently that it is not uncommon for him to be the recipient of
threats in an ongoing way, and that is what prompted the
question.
Mr. Clark, let me ask you this. Do you all in the Marshals
Service have authority to issue administrative subpoenas?
Mr. Clark. No, Congressman, we don't at this point in time,
although it is something that we have in the past sought to
obtain. And we would hopefully find in the future, with
congressional support, the ability to obtain it.
Mr. Coble. Well, that was my follow-up. I was going to say,
would this authority enhance the ability of your agency to
carry out your mission in a more fulfilling way?
Mr. Clark. Most definitely.
And if I can just give you a brief example how: Under the
current context of judicial security, when we are investigating
individuals who have threatened a prosecutor, a Federal judge,
a local judge, whoever the case may be, time is of the essence
to be able to quickly gather investigative information and
particularly those who we know have the means and the
capability to carryout a threat.
So we would absolutely use the administrative subpoena
authority to be able to do that. Not to mention in the other
various missions that we have where we already have known
criminal defendants who are wanted, who actually have an
outstanding warrant for them, that, again, timing and being
able to gather information quickly and effectively is of the
essence.
So we feel like administrative subpoena authority would be
of great value to the Marshals Service. And we are one agency
that, I believe, needs it and should have it and would be very
responsible if we did have it.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I don't presume to tell two
Virginians how to run their agenda, but this is something that
may warrant the attention of the Subcommittee as we move along
into this session.
I yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
And I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony. It
has been very helpful. This is obviously a priority of the
Committee, and we will get working on it and hopefully we can
get this through. The Senate has already taken action, so we
will take action too.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 10:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Answer to Question posed by the Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott to
the Honorable David Bryan Sentelle
We are in the process of expanding and elaborating on each of the
Ten Essential Elements for Courtroom Safety and Security. Each Element
will become a written chapter in a large printed document, which we
hope will become a compendium of best practices in each of these ten
areas. For example, we have recently finished Essential Element #1,
``Operational Security: Standard Operating Procedures;'' #2, ``Facility
Security Planning: The Self Audit Survey of Court Facilities;'' #3,
``Emergency Preparedness and Response: Continuity of Operations;'' #4
``Disaster Recovery;'' #5 ``Threat Assessment;'' #6 ``Incident
Reporting;'' and #7 ``Funding.'' The Conference of Chief Justices/
Conference of State Court Administrators Security and Emergency
Preparedness Committee are the primary authors of these ten chapters.
They are currently reviewing Elements 8, 9 and 10. The Committee is
planning to complete this project by the end of 2007. Final
ratification by both Conferences is expected in early 2008.
In terms of state adoption of the Elements, we can report that the
following states have adopted the recommendations or are in the process
of adoption:
1. Operational Security: Arizona, Delaware, Michigan, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
2. Facility Security Planning: California, Florida, Indiana,
New York, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.
3. Emergency Preparedness and Response: California, Florida,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Virginia
4. Disaster Recovery: California, Florida, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania and Virginia
5. Threat Assessment: Michigan, New Jersey and New Mexico
6. Incident Reporting: Hawaii, New Jersey, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin
7. Funding: California, Missouri and Pennsylvania
8. Security Equipment and Costs: drafting of chapter in
progress
9. Resources and Partnerships: drafting of chapter in
progress
10. New Courthouse Design: drafting of chapter in progress