Court Security Improvement Act of 2007--Motion to Proceed--Resumed

COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed -- (Senate - April 18, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BIPARTISANSHIP

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are a little over 100 days into the new congressional session. With new leadership, new management, there was hope--and still is--that we can find some ways to establish bipartisan cooperation. By its nature, the Senate almost requires it. Under Senate rules, anything that is serious and important takes 60 votes. In a Chamber with 100 Members, that is obviously a supermajority, and that requires cooperation. When Senator Johnson has recovered to the point that he is back on the Senate floor and we are at full complement, Senate Democrats will have 51 votes to the Republicans' 49. This means that on any given day, if we are going to pass or consider important legislation, it has to be bipartisan. We need help. We need Republicans to join with Democrats to bring it to 60 votes. That is the nature of the Senate.

Some people, particularly House Members--I used to be one--look at this as not only a quaint procedure but in many cases antiquated. I disagree. The nature of the Senate is reflected in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who needed to create this body in order to have a U.S. Government. When they initially suggested that Congress would reflect the population of America, smaller States, such as those represented by the Presiding Officer, the State of Rhode Island, said: We don't have a chance. We are going to be overwhelmed by the big States such as Virginia and Massachusetts. So in their wisdom, they said: In the Senate, every State has two Senators, no matter how large or small.

In the Senate, when it came to rules, the rules reflected the same feeling, that minority rights would always be respected, that it would take a large majority vote to overcome those minority rights; in other words, 60 votes. At one time it was 67 votes. That 60-vote margin was added in the 1960s. As a result, to achieve anything in the Senate, we need to work together.

Unfortunately, in the first 100 days, there have been a few instances of cooperation but some other disappointing episodes. When we wanted to debate and have a vote about President Bush's proposal to send 20 or 30,000 more of our best and bravest American soldiers into the war in Iraq, when we wanted the Senate to go on record on that issue to debate it honestly so the American people and their strong feelings would be represented, 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 considering a resolution going on record as to whether we approve or disapprove of the President's action.

I personally think the escalation of ground troops in Iraq is the wrong decision. This is a civil war, a war between Sunnis and Shias. Our sons and daughters are caught in the crossfire of that civil war, a war that is generated by a conflict within the Islamic religion that dates back 14 centuries. I don't believe sending 20 or 30 or 40,000 more American soldiers is going to change the conflict. Only the Iraqis can change it. I wanted to make that point in the debate and let those who defend the President's position to escalate the war make their point as well and bring it to a vote. That is what the Senate is supposed to be about. But the Republican minority, with the power given them under Senate rules, said: No, there will be no debate.

We couldn't find 60 votes to even have a debate on that issue. They stopped us. Earlier this week, they stopped us again. What was the measure in question? It was the reauthorization of the intelligence agencies of the Government. These agencies are critical to our national security. Intelligence is the first line of defense when it comes to terrorism. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee; Senator Chris Bond is the ranking Republican. The two of them worked on a bipartisan bill and brought it to the Senate floor. There was a lot of give and take. Senator Rockefeller acceded to the requests of Senator Bond and vice versa. They brought this bill to the floor. For the first time in years, we were going to have an authorization bill that addressed some of the serious problems of intelligence gathering so that we can be safer. What happened? As it turned out, the Republican leadership decided they didn't want to have this debate. They didn't want this bill to be seriously considered and passed. On two different occasions this week, they refused to vote to give us 60 votes so we could consider this bill and pass it. We had to put it back on the calendar, take it off the floor.

Think about that. In the midst of a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with all of the threats to the United States, a trip to an airport now becomes a half-hour commitment. As you take off your shoes and make sure your toothpaste is in a plastic bag and all of the things we go through that relate to terrorism, the Republican minority decided they didn't want us to debate and bring to a vote intelligence reauthorization. That was their decision.

For the second time, on a critical issue--first on the escalation of the troops in Iraq and then on the reauthorization of our intelligence agencies--the Republican minority has said: We don't want the debate. We don't want the Senate to act. It is within their power. That is what the Senate is all about. A minority, in this case 49 Republican Senators, was able to stop it.

But that was not the end of it. There was another issue, one that many of us consider to be very basic. It relates to the Medicare prescription Part D Program. Medicare prescription Part D is a program long overdue. When Medicare was created by President Johnson in the 1960s, it didn't include prescription drugs. Over the years, as more and better prescription drugs were discovered and invented and marketed, we understood that to keep people healthy, our parents and grandparents and disabled people needed access to affordable drugs.

For many years, many of us have supported the idea of including prescription drugs in the Medicare plan so seniors could have help in paying for them. When the bill came before us to vote on several years ago, when the Republicans were in control of this body, we wanted to add one provision. The one provision said the Medicare Program could bargain for less expensive, more affordable drugs. Private insurance companies could do the same, but the Medicare Program could offer prescription drugs to seniors on Medicare as one option, and then seniors could make a choice. Do they want to go with a private insurance company? Do they want to go with some other source for their prescription drugs under Medicare? Or do they want to go back to the Medicare plan?

Our thinking behind it is sound, because what we said is: We learned a lesson at the Veterans' Administration. In the Veterans' Administration we learned that to reduce the cost of prescription drugs for the men and women who serve in uniform and are now veterans, our Veterans' Administration bargains with pharmaceutical companies, and they have bargaining power. They buy in bulk. They buy at discount. Our veterans benefit from it. They get the best at the lowest prices, and it is good for them and for taxpayers.

Why can't our seniors under Medicare have the same opportunity? That was the point we wanted to make, a point that said: Medicare should be allowed to bargain bulk discounts, low prices for seniors so we can give them even a better deal than the current program offers. The pharmaceutical companies hate this idea like the devil hates holy water. The notion that they would face competition, that they would have to give bulk discounts, eats right into their profits, their bottom lines, and their CEOs' golden parachutes. They have been spending millions of dollars trying to convince America that this kind of bulk discount, this effort to have bargaining for lower prices, is somehow fundamentally wrong. They have spent a lot of money on it--full-page ads in newspapers, television advertising to try to convince Americans that having some competition when it comes to prescription drugs is plain wrong.

They didn't convince many, but they convinced enough, because earlier this morning we had a vote as to whether we would move to this proposal to allow Medicare to bargain for lower prescription drugs and, once again, the Republican minority stopped us. They don't want to have that debate. They don't want to face a vote. They want to make sure their friends in the pharmaceutical industry don't have to face competition. I am sure they feel their position is correct. I happen to believe my position is correct.

The nature of debate in the Senate is that we stand and talk and ultimately come to a vote. But on three separate occasions now, the Republican leadership has stopped the debate, stopped the debate on escalating troops in Iraq, when it comes to intelligence reauthorization, and when we try to reduce prescription drug prices for seniors.

It seems they want to do nothing. They want the Senate to come in, collect its paycheck, and go home; make a few speeches on the floor, wave a few flags, and head on home.

That is what happened around here for a long time. The do-nothing Congress of the last 2 years is the reason the voters came out and voted as they did last November. They said: We sent you to Washington to do something. We sent you to Washington to address issues that are meaningful and important to people across America. One of those issues is the war in Iraq. Another issue is homeland security. Certainly another issue is the cost of health insurance and the cost of prescription drugs. In the Democratic majority, we have tried to come to those issues. We have tried to move the debate to those issues. But the Republican minority has stopped us time and time again.

Ultimately, they will be held accountable for their strategy. That is what elections are all about. But we have a year and a half to go here, a year and a half more before another election. Are we going to waste all this time? Are we going to spend a little time addressing the issues that count: first and foremost, the war, but then keeping America safe? How about a national energy policy? Will the Republican minority stop us from debating that at a time when we know we are so dependent on foreign oil that we are sending hundreds of millions of dollars each day to countries around the world that disagree with our basic values because they happen to be supplying us with oil?

When it comes to issues such as global warming, will they use the same strategy to stop the debate so that for 2 more years things will get worse instead of better when it comes to the greenhouse gases and the global warming and climate change which we all know is a reality? They have the power to do it.

The only thing that can break the grip they have on the agenda and calendar of the Senate is if 10 of their Members have the courage to break ranks and join us. It is the only way we can come to these debates. So far a handful have edged across the line, put the toe in the water and said: Well, maybe we are with you on the debate. But it is never enough. It is always enough just to have a press release back home saying: We tried to help the Democrats--but never enough to get the job done. That is what we face.

Now comes this bill before us, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. This bill is the kind of bill which routinely passes in the Senate with no debate. The reason is, it isn't debatable. It comes down to a question of protecting the men and women who serve in the Federal judiciary.

This is an issue which is personal with me. In 2005, one of my close personal friends, a woman I appointed to the Federal court in Chicago, Joan Lefkow, went through a tragic personal experience. Someone invaded her home and murdered her husband and mother. Those killings were perpetrated by a disgruntled litigant who had his case dismissed by Judge Lefkow.

It was an unwelcomed wake-up call for our country. It sensitized many of us to the vulnerability of our judges and their families.

It was not an isolated incident. Last year, a judge was shot in Reno, NV. In Louisville, KY, a man pleaded guilty to threatening to kill the Federal judge presiding over the outcome of his arson trial. In March 2005, three people were killed in an Atlanta courthouse, including a county judge. Just yesterday, there were reports that the car and garage of an Illinois State court judge on the north side of Chicago were damaged by gunshots.

The sad reality is that violence and threats against our judges are on the rise. Between 1996 and 2005, the number of threats and inappropriate communications toward judges went up dramatically--from 201 in 1996 to 943 in 2005. There may be many reasons for this increased violence against judges, but one of the most regrettable is the rise in criticism and condemnation of these fine men and women not only in the halls of Congress but on some of the shock radio shows that go on and pass as news on some cable channels and radio stations.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a woman I respect, who recently retired from the Supreme Court, said recently:

[T]he breadth and intensity of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary may be unmatched in American history.

It is time for the rage and irresponsible rhetoric to come to an end. It is
also time for Congress to step up and increase protection for judges.

In 2005, Senator Obama, my junior colleague from Illinois, and I helped obtain an appropriation after the terrible Lefkow incident. We wanted to provide enough money so judges would have some basic protection in their home.

The bill we vote on today--the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007--is another important response. It passed the Senate last year on two different occasions. The House of Representatives refused to take it up. Let me touch on a couple important provisions in this bill, and then let me tell you why, at the end of these remarks, we have reached another terrible moment when it comes to considering a bill of this importance.

First, the bill has new criminal penalties for misusing personal information to threaten harm to judges and their families. It expands the definition of dangerous weapons that are banned from Federal courts. It extends and expands the ability of Federal judges to redact personal information from their financial disclosures that might endanger themselves or their families. It allocates more resources to the U.S. Marshals Service to protect Federal judges. It requires better coordination between the Marshals and the Federal judiciary. It authorizes State courts to receive Federal grant money to improve security. It is essential that we pass this legislation, and it is long overdue.

A year ago, on the first anniversary of the murders of her husband and mother, Judge Lefkow, of Chicago, released a statement. Here is what she said:

The tragedies which we experienced have necessarily alerted me to the fragility of judicial security. Accordingly, I have made a commitment to all of my judicial sisters and brothers to do all in my power to help improve the safety of all judges in the years ahead. It is my fervent hope that nothing that happened in Chicago and Atlanta last year will ever be repeated.

Those are words we need to take to heart today. I commend Majority Leader Harry Reid for bringing up this bill. This Court Security Improvement Act is a legacy to the memory of those judges and family members whose lives were cut short by tragic, vicious acts of violence.

Judges should always feel secure in their courtrooms and safe at home. We owe it to them and their families to do everything we can to protect them.

As I said before, this is the kind of bill which Members would come to the floor and make a few statements on, such as I made, and then pass by a voice vote, for obvious reasons. Who is going to argue against this bill? Who believes our judges should not be safe in their courtrooms and at home? We cannot ignore the obvious. There are dangers to their lives, and we should act on them. But what has happened in the Senate from a procedural viewpoint reflects the argument I made earlier. A Senator on the Republican side, within his rights under the Senate rule, objected to this bill. Well, it was not enough he objected--he can do that; he could vote against it if that is his choosing--but he demanded we have what we call a cloture motion, that we postpone this bill for 30 hours before we take it up and consider it. That is his right. I will fight for his right to do so. But it reflects a mindset among some on the other side that is not constructive and not positive.

Hard as it is to believe, there are some who think the bill I described is an insidious part of the procedure of the Senate, and they call it an earmark--an earmark. This is not the kind of Jack Abramoff earmark where a fat cat lobbyist on K Street in Washington inserts a provision in the bill for one of his clients, which ends up with millions of dollars for his client and a fat fee for him to take home. Nothing in this bill inserts a dollar for any private entity, nor does it create any opportunity for a lobbyist to get fat and sassy. Yet some on the other side of the aisle are arguing this bill has to be stopped because it is an earmark. An earmark? An earmark to create a program to provide money for courts to make them safer? An earmark to increase the penalties for those who would harm our judges and their families?

They have corrupted the word ``earmark'' to the point where they think everything is an earmark. This bill is not. This bill emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, with strong bipartisan support. Instead of enacting it and moving on to other important bills, we have been bogged down again by procedural hurdles that are thrown at us from the other side of the aisle--something as basic and as fundamental as this bill.

Now, I am glad Republican Senators joined us in trying to stop this one Senator who believes he sees an earmark behind every bill and every bush. But the point is, if we are going to be constructive in the Senate--whether it is on the war or intelligence or reducing the cost of prescription drugs or protecting judges--we need much more bipartisan cooperation. As I said earlier, I will fight to the death to defend my colleagues' rights under the rules of the Senate. Those rules have been used by me and by other Senators, and that is why they are there. But common sense should prevail. I think the common good should prevail, and we should come together, Democrats and Republicans, and compromise and cooperate. That is one thing the American people are begging for: Start addressing the real problems, some that affect only a small number of Americans, as important as they may be, such as members of the Federal judiciary, and others that affect us all, such as the war in Iraq.

Isn't it time we put behind the do-nothing Congress, the do-nothing mentality, and start out on a new day in this Congress, trying to find bipartisan ways to cooperate and solve the real problems that face our country?

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source