[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 11, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3120-H3133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1279, GANG DETERRENCE AND COMMUNITY
PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 268 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 268
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1279) to amend title 18, United States Code,
to reduce violent gang crime and protect law-abiding citizens
and communities from violent criminals, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be
[[Page H3121]]
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
{time} 1045
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule providing for consideration of
H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended
by the Committee on the Judiciary, and now printed in the bill, shall
be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and it
makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules
report accompanying this resolution.
It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
It waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the
report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to get tough on gang activity.
If we can get tough on drugs and if we can get tough on identity theft,
terrorism, child abduction, we can get tough on gangs by creating the
tools to put gang members behind bars and get them off the streets.
Gang activity is a real problem, a continuously growing problem. All
cities with a population of more than 250,000 people have reported gang
activity. Best estimates indicate that there are at least 750,000 gang
members in the United States. They represent the ills of our society
with links to drug trade, human trafficking, identity theft, assault
and murder. Gang members continue to break our laws, reject
rehabilitation efforts, and they are branching out beyond our cities
into suburban and, yes, even rural, communities.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot solve our problems by simply throwing around
money, nor can we simply categorize gang activity as isolated
incidents. We cannot eliminate gangs by prosecuting incident by
incident. We need to enforce our laws in language gang members can
understand: you do the crime; you do the time.
With the support of the Fraternal Order of Police, the National
Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Police Officers and
many other, more specialized, law enforcement organizations, H.R. 1279,
the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005, will make the
necessary changes to prosecute gang criminals.
The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act designates high-
intensity gang areas, and it authorizes funds to combat their illegal
activity for special State and Federal enforcement task forces. It
authorizes $20 million per year over 5 years to help States hire
prosecutors, purchase technology, purchase equipment, and train law
enforcement.
Most importantly, it increases penalties to deter violent gang crimes
such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault. The penalties include
death or life imprisonment for murder, 30 years for kidnapping or rape,
and 20 years for assault. In addition, this legislation includes
juvenile justice reform to ensure that adult crimes, with adult
motives, are prosecuted with adult penalties.
The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act would give the
Attorney General discretion on whether or not to try a juvenile in
Federal court as an adult if they are 16 or 17 years old. Mr. Speaker,
let me be clear, this legislation does not and will not apply adult
standards to anyone younger than 16.
According to the Department of Justice ``Homicide Trends Report,''
between 1976 and 2002 one out of every three murders were committed by
a juvenile for gang-related reasons. That means 16- and 17-year-olds
are making adult, criminal decisions that equal tragedy for our
neighbors and our friends.
More than half the States have enacted laws that mandate the
prosecution of juveniles as adults for certain violent crimes, most
notably murder. My own State of Georgia has laws that give prosecutors
discretion on whether to treat juveniles as adults involving violent
and repeat offenses.
Children by the legal definition making adult criminal decisions
affect everyone. We need to pass strong anti-gang laws to help prevent
troubled teenagers from becoming violent gang members.
As gangs spread and grow, we are seeing more drug activity. These are
not simply high schoolers caught with marijuana. We are seeing gangs
produce and trade dangerous drugs such as methamphetamine and cocaine.
For example, in February, the Atlanta police, United States Drug
Enforcement, the MCS Drug Task Force and other law enforcement agencies
discovered Georgia's first ``superlab'' in my district, in Smyrna,
Georgia, the 11th. With 39 pounds of meth crystal and 250 gallons of
the drug in liquid form, one mistake could have destroyed an entire
neighborhood.
By strengthening laws against gangs, we are helping fight the supply
side of our war against drugs. Gangs are not just a city threat when
they jeopardize suburban neighborhoods.
Mr. Speaker, gang activity is as important to the war on crime today
as the battles against organized crime in the 1960s and 1970s. This
legislation goes beyond national gangs like the Bloods and the Crips
and would actually make progress in breaking down membership before
these smaller gangs expand into a national nightmare.
Like our war against terrorism, our law enforcement on the State,
local, and national levels need to communicate, to share intelligence,
and to share resources. We need stronger sentencing to deter crime, and
we need to identify potential hot spots before they become major
problems.
With passage of the rule, and the underlying bill, we will have the
power to take back our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Gingrey), my colleague, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that every single Member of this
House is concerned about gang violence in our communities and
throughout our country, and every single Member of this House is
dedicated to trying to make our communities and our Nation safer.
However, some of us want to pass not a press release but tough
legislation that will indeed make our communities safer.
So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1279, the
so-called Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act. It is bad
policy wrapped in a bad bill that will simply not do the job the
sponsors claim it will do.
Do not let the title of the bill fool Members. It has nothing to do
with deterrence or community protection. This bill does nothing to
address the causes of gang activity. Instead, its primary purposes
include unjustifiable punishment and ineffective enforcement of the
law.
The bill unjustifiably expands death penalty provisions, removes
judicial discretion over transferring juveniles to the adult court
system, and imposes ineffective mandatory minimum sentencing.
Mr. Speaker, Time magazine focused on the spike in gang activity in
Los Angeles in the September 3, 2001, edition. In that story, Father
Greg Boyle, a Catholic priest who worked in a
[[Page H3122]]
gang-infested area of East Los Angeles, said that California's anti-
gang strategy, which has been copied across the country, ``is bankrupt.
You have the three strikes law and jail and so on, but you can't
terrify a kid into being hopeful about his future.''
The following quote is even more telling: ``We don't need new laws.
We have a penal code a foot thick. You can't just work gangs with
police suppression. You need prevention and intervention programs,
too.'' Mr. Speaker, that statement was not made by a social worker or
community activist. No, Mr. Speaker, it came from Sergeant Wes McBride,
founder of the California Gang Investigators Association and a 28-year
veteran of anti-gang policing.
After reading this legislation, it is clear to me that this bill will
do nothing to deter gang activity and, instead, will sentence American
youth to lives of crime and violence instead of proactively intervening
in our communities to prevent our children and our youngsters from
joining gangs in the first place.
This legislation contains several provisions that unjustifiably
expand the Federal death penalty. Despite numerous studies that have
documented both the exposure of innocent individuals to the death
penalty system and its discriminatory nature, the proponents of this
bill want to make this already-flawed system worse.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this clearly. I am opposed to the death
penalty. I do not believe the death penalty deters future crimes. It
has been proven that the death penalty unfairly targets minorities. It
has also been proven that innocent people have been sent to death row
and have been put to death. Inclusion of the death penalty in this bill
is wrong and should be stripped out.
Since 1973, 119 innocent people have been released from Death Row. A
study performed by the Criminal Justice Reform Education Fund reported
that over two-thirds of all capital convictions and sentences between
1973 and 1995 were reversed because of serious error during trial or
sentencing. How can we expand the death penalty system, especially to
include juveniles, when it is proven to be faulty, discriminatory, and
not an effective deterrent to violent behavior?
Let me remind my colleagues that President Bush signed the Justice
for All Act into law on October 30, 2004. This law, which was approved
overwhelmingly by this body, improved the fallibility of the death
penalty system by making DNA technology available to our criminal
justice system in order to improve its ability to exonerate the
innocent, as well as identify and convict the guilty. However, the
important provisions in the Justice For All Act that would improve the
fallibility of the death penalty system are not even being funded. As
if that were not bad enough, the bill before us today would actually
create new death penalty provisions.
In effect, Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we are adding more death
penalty cases to an already-broken system that is desperately in need
of repair. By not funding the protections provided under the Justice
for All Act and by expanding the death penalty to new cases, this bill
makes the death penalty system worse, not better.
Another provision that I strongly disagree with is the transferring
of juveniles to the adult court system. Research performed by the
Department of Justice has shown that youths tried as adults are more
likely to commit a greater number of crimes upon release and that these
crimes will be violent. Youths sent to prison with adults end up
victims of rape, assault and become high repeat offenders. When these
prisoners are released and attempt to reenter society, what are their
options? It is most likely they will pick up where they left off and
contribute once again to the cycle of gangs and violence.
Moving a youth into the adult court system and prison system will not
reduce the amount of youth crime and gang activity. If anything, it
will make it worse.
{time} 1100
Another flawed aspect of H.R. 1279 is its emphasis on mandatory
minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentencing will not prevent
youths from joining gang or reduce violent crime among youths.
Mandatory minimums were originally created to decrease the disparity in
sentencing of like offenders. However, the Judicial Conference of the
United States and the U.S. Sentencing Commission has found mandatory
minimums ``require sentencing courts to impose the same sentence on
offenders when sound policy and common sense call for reasonable
differences in punishment.'' In other words, judges are prevented from
assessing what type of punishment fits the crime.
Removing sentencing power from judges and shifting discretion to
prosecutors will not prevent any youth from joining a gang, committing
his first crime or becoming a repeat offender. In fact, this is exactly
what the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in January when it ruled to allow
Federal judges to deviate from sentencing guidelines. I submit, Mr.
Speaker, that this bill's host of harsh mandatory sentences is directly
in defiance of the Supreme Court ruling.
Mr. Speaker, we know that intervention programs work in the majority
of cases. For the most violent and dangerous individuals, we already
have laws on the books that address these actions. But we have a real
chance through prevention and intervention programs to make a
difference in the lives of these young people. Instead of expanding
death penalty provisions and trying juveniles as adults, we need to
address the problem of youth crime and violence through early
intervention and treatment methods. Programs like Head Start and the
Job Corps have proven to be an effective means of deterring crime.
Studies of Head Start demonstrate that $3 is saved for every $1 spent
on the program by reducing the future cost of crime, remedial education
and welfare. This is clearly more cost effective than spending $9
billion over the next 10 years for prison bed construction and inmate
upkeep, which happens to be the cost impact of H.R. 1279 estimated by
the Sentencing Commission.
Job Corps programs deter crime by guiding at-risk youths and adults
to getting a job or full-time study. About 75 percent of Job Corps
participants move on to a full-time job or study and are one-third less
likely to be arrested than nonparticipants. This approach makes sense
as a crime deterrent, and it is also economically beneficial.
Youth crime and gangs are an issue in many cities around the country.
In my home city of Worcester, Massachusetts, I helped coordinate a
community-wide forum this past fall to address the issue of gang
violence. Local police, city government officials, the district
attorney, the sheriff's office, and hundreds of individuals were among
the attendees. Also participating in this event was the Boston Ten
Point Coalition, a nationally recognized leadership foundation whose
mission is to reach out to at-risk youth and gang members in hopes of
reducing violence in the community.
One particular item the Coalition discussed was the Adopt-A-Gang
program, in which city churches keep their doors open and serve as a
support center for troubled youth. The churches work with local law
enforcement to communicate messages of nonviolence and zero tolerance
for crime to these youths. And I am happy to say that the churches of
the city of Worcester, along with the city government, the police
department and local businesses are currently working with the
Coalition to implement this program.
Hands-on, coordinated efforts like the Adopt-A-Gang program are how
youth crime can be deterred, not through codification of a so-called
gang-buster bill like H.R. 1279. Early prevention programs like Head
Start reduce crime; expansion of death penalty provisions will not.
Recruitment efforts by Job Corps deter gangs; prosecuting young people
as adults will not. Collaborative interventions like Adopt-A-Gang
program protect our community; mandatory minimum sentencing will not.
Mr. Speaker, none of the provisions in this bill have proven to be
effective ways of dealing with gangs and violent youth behavior.
Instead of taking a comprehensive approach to the problem, H.R. 1279's
``punishment first, prevention last'' methodology does not dedicate any
efforts toward early intervention, education or rehabilitation.
Ask any cop. Aggressive policing alone will never break the cycle of
[[Page H3123]]
gang violence. However, one of the things this bill also does not
address is the shortage of police officers across the country. The
Federal Government is cutting the COPS program. Local communities all
across this country are laying off police officers at a time when we
should be increasing the number of police who are on our streets.
Intervention and preventive programs like Head Start, Job Corps and the
Ten Point Coalition are crucial to any hopes of deterring gangs.
Mr. Speaker, for the past decade, this House has worked in a
bipartisan manner to effectively draft and pass comprehensive juvenile
justice legislation. This bill is a sharp break with that tradition.
Getting tough should mean passing legislation that works, not just
passing legislation that sounds tough.
Mr. Speaker, finally, let me just say that 16 Democratic amendments
were not made in order by the Committee on Rules last night. Why? I
have no idea. According to our schedule, we are going to be done today
by around 4 p.m. Surely it is not because we do not have the time to be
able to debate some of these important amendments.
This is the kind of legislation where people from different
communities, from urban areas and from rural areas who are dealing with
this issue of gang violence have important ideas. They brought them
forward in the Committee on Rules last night. Yet, last night, the
Committee on Rules said to 16 Democrats that you will be shut out of
this debate. I do not think that is the way we should be discussing a
bill like this.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1279 and
oppose the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to clarify and to remind my colleagues on the other side, who are
suggesting we should be adding more social programs to this
legislation, that this is not a social programs bill. It is a law
enforcement bill. If they would like to work with the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary to craft a bill that would authorize arts
and craft classes for gang members, certainly they can do that.
I would also like to mention that we currently have spent over the
past 4 years, 2001 to 2004, over $2.1 billion on juvenile social
programs aimed at prevention. And even with $2.1 billion, we have
continued to see this dramatic rise in gang violence.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Forbes), the distinguished author of the bill and member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I rise
today to support both this rule and the underlying bill and to point
out to my good friend on the other side that this is a bipartisan bill,
and it is a bill that is designed to reach a major problem in our
country today, which is the rise of violent gang crime.
When I listen to some of our opponents talk about this bill, they
always use the term ``antisocial behavior,'' and I can tell you from
studying gangs for over 10 years, it is not antisocial behavior that we
are talking about. Let me, Mr. Speaker, tell you what we are talking
about. We are talking about machete attacks, witness intimidation,
extortion, cold-blooded assassination, rapes, cutting off people's
fingers, cutting off their arms, cutting off their heads.
But what concerns me the most, Mr. Speaker, is the metamorphosis I
have seen in violent gang activity across our country. First of all,
there has been a huge change in numbers. My good friend from Georgia
mentioned earlier that, as we sit here and debate this bill, there is
probably between 750,000 to 850,000 gang members in the United States.
To put that in perspective, if they were an army from a foreign
country, it would be the sixth largest army in the world. And that is
not waiting to get in our borders, but already here.
Their violence has increased enormously. In some of these gangs, in
order to be able to get in, if you are a woman, you have to be raped
in, for 30 minutes by six different individuals. If you are a male, you
have to be either beaten in or, to some of the gangs, you have to
murder somebody to get into the gang.
And they have become national and international in scope. No longer
are we talking about the old Jets and Sharks from West Side Story; we
are talking about gangs that are across the country that have boards of
directors outside the prisons, boards of directors inside the prisons,
and they are ordering violent activity. They may be in Los Angeles, but
they are ordering the violence in another part of the country.
Their recruitment is now reaching as low as the elementary schools,
and their motivation to join is no longer just a fear or a want to
belong to something. Today, many people feel if they do not join the
gang, they will be beaten or intimidated by the gang. So it is the
presence of the gang and the fear and intimidation of the gang that is
drawing them there.
Also, one of the things that concerns us most is that many of these
gangs have become the most proficient smugglers of individuals and
weapons in the country, and it is a small linkage between the gang
activity that we are seeing and their connection with organized
terrorist activity.
What this bill says is that, if you join a violent criminal gang and
you commit a gang crime, you will go to jail for a long time, or you
will help us bring down that network. What this bill says is that, if
you are a gang leader, you can no longer order violence in one part of
the country by a 16- or 17-year old and expect to go scot-free, because
the Federal, State and local government is coming after you. It also
says that we are going to use the combined strength of the Federal,
State and local government to protect citizens in our own borders from
the domestic terror they face from gangs.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if this bill fails, we might as
well put a sign on a billboard that says ``Coming to a neighborhood
near you soon,'' because that is the growth we are seeing in violent
gangs.
My good friend just raised in his opposition to the bill the support
of the California Gang Investigators Association. They support this
bill. The Fraternal Order of Police supports this bill. The National
Latino Peace Officers Association supports this bill. The National
Association of Police Organizations supports this bill. The major
chiefs of law enforcement departments across the country support this
bill. The National Troopers Coalition supports this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we will support this bill and make it into law
and protect our citizens.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to my colleague by saying that all the groups he has
mentioned, and so many more, also support the COPS program, too, which
the President has cut by $40 million. We can talk all we want about
using all this harsh rhetoric, but the bottom line is, there are laws
already on the books if you commit a violent crime in this country.
Right now, if you commit a murder, you will go to jail.
One of the things that is most troubling to me as we talk about how
we make our communities safer, there is no talk about the fact that we
are cutting funds for our local police departments. We need more police
on the streets. That is not the only answer here, but clearly, the
answer is not cutting the COPS program, which the Republican majority
in this House is doing, and the President has suggested in his budget.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I have worked with gangs at home in conjunction with our
police department, and there is a way to start prevention. I recognize
that the crimes that have been mentioned here this morning are crimes
that should be punished. I believe if you do the crime, you do the
time. But I also believe that you can prevent this with young people.
I dialogued with members of a gang several years ago, shortly after I
heard that the people are coming from Los Angeles to start gangs. And
in dialoguing with these young people, I first had to understand what
they were saying. That gang activity has been
[[Page H3124]]
converted to something positive because I encouraged it. I said, Stay
together but do not do crime stuff, do things positive. That is what
they have done. They have even run people for office. You have got to
not give up on young people.
Americans deserve a bill that would successfully combat gang activity
and violence. This bill does fall short of that. This bill fails to
address the root of the problem. Even though law enforcement is vital,
we must try to prevent gang activities before they occur. Prevention
programs can save many lives and many dollars. It is a lot cheaper to
prevent all this crime and prevent them going to jail and for them to
stay in school.
Of the $50 million appropriated in this bill, not one penny goes
toward prevention. You can call it play. You can call it anything you
want. But in-school and after-school prevention programs successfully
teach young people the skills they need to combat peer pressure. They
target environmental risk factors by teaching young people conflict
resolution skills, cultural sensitivity and the negative aspects of
gang life, if it is violent.
These young people want to be a part of something, and it might as
well be a positive experience. We must stop the violence at the source.
If we do not put forth that activity, that is when it gravitates to
what he just discussed. We must give our young people a path to success
not just a path to prison.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
the underlying legislation. I want to congratulate my colleagues, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for his management of this rule;
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) for the hard work that he
has put into this effort.
It is amazing, as we listened to those numbers that the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) used, talking about the fact that this would
be the sixth largest army on the face of the earth, between three-
quarters of a million and 850,000 gang members, 21,500 gangs out there;
the fact that it has become such an international entity.
{time} 1115
It is clear that we need to do everything that we can to take action.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this rule will provide us with an
opportunity to do just that. At the close of his statement, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) bemoaned the fact that we
do not have enough amendments to be made in order by Democrats. The
fact of the matter is the gentlewoman who just spoke, my very good
friend from Dallas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), is going to have an
amendment made in order under this rule.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) is going to have an amendment
made in order under this rule. The gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Watson) is going to have two amendments made in order under this rule.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) who is sitting here on the
floor along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is going
to have an amendment made in order under this rule.
The fact is six of the 10 amendments that are going to be made in
order under this rule are being offered by members of the minority,
creating an opportunity for us to consider a wide range of alternatives
in dealing with what everyone acknowledges is an extraordinarily
serious problem.
I want to take a moment to talk about three other amendments that are
made in order under this rule that are very important, and I urge
support for those amendments. They are being offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood). The fact is many of the problems that are gang-related stem
from an issue which we have just begun to deal with by passing the REAL
ID Act and that has to do with the problem of illegal immigration. We
know when we look at the number of gang-related homicides that have
taken place in Southern California in the last 5 years, in the county
where I live, Los Angeles, we have had 307 gang-related homicides. And
now the number of those murders is spilling over into San Bernardino
County.
One of the things that we found, tragically, is that much of this is
directly related to the problem of illegal immigration. An overwhelming
majority of the people who come into this country illegally, Mr.
Speaker, come here for one reason and one reason only and that is to
feed their families, to make sure that they can make a better life for
their families. But of the remaining 2 percent who come in, tragically
many of them have been perpetrating crime and tragically they are
attracted to gangs.
As was said earlier by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), many
of these gangs are managed from inside of prisons, outside of prisons,
boards of directors, and there is an international component to this
which must be addressed. So I will say that the amendment of the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), which I think is a very good
one, will actually call for an additional 5 years of incarceration if,
in fact, the gang member, the criminal, is found to be here illegally.
One of the things we need to make sure that we do, Mr. Speaker, is
that as we increase that level of incarceration for that illegal
immigrant felon, it is essential that we make sure the Federal
Government provide the resources for that incarceration. That is
something that must be done. It is done under the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program, the SCAAP program; and we have to make sure that we
provide those resources there, but it is correct and very important for
us to do what we can to ensure that those people who are here illegally
and perpetrate crimes against our fellow citizens are penalized for
that.
I believe we have a very good piece of legislation here. It will help
us turn the corner on what is a very serious problem. We also need to
do everything that we can to, as has been pointed out by a number of
people, train and provide incentive and create opportunity for young
people so they are not attracted to the gang life and a life of crime.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues' support of this very fair and
balanced rule and, as I said, urge support for the underlying measure
and urge support for the Goodlatte amendment and the two Norwood
amendments.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I always enjoy listening to the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). He
mentions that a handful of Democratic amendments were made in order,
and I guess we all should be grateful on this side of the aisle because
usually we get shut out totally. But the fact of the matter is 16
Democratic amendments were not made in order. Sixteen amendments have
been shut out from this debate. If this issue was so important, and it
is important, then why can we not take the time to debate all the
various ideas? As I said, according to the schedule, we may be out of
here at 4 o'clock today. I am willing to stay until 5, or even until 6
or even until 7 to give these other people an opportunity to have their
concerns voiced on this floor.
We all represent communities, unfortunately, that have been touched
by gang violence. All of us have dealt with community leaders, with our
local police, in trying to figure out how best to deal with this
violence. We all have good ideas. I think, especially on an issue like
this, as many people who have these ideas should be able to bring them
to the floor and to be able to debate them. But, unfortunately, 16
amendments have been totally blocked from consideration on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the debate, you might not think it is
illegal to use a machete to chop somebody's hand off or to, last night,
gang-rape a handicapped child in the park, murder for hire, cold-
blooded murders. You might not think those are illegal. In most
jurisdictions in the country, certainly in the jurisdictions that I
represent, it is already illegal to take a
[[Page H3125]]
machete and chop somebody's hand off, and I have not heard complaints
from the local police that they need a new Federal law to help deal
with those crimes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced just about 2 months ago,
incidentally the same day that a juvenile justice coalition released
just another study showing how trying more juveniles as adults will
actually increase crime. The rule, of course, does not allow us to
address that issue, where juveniles, the marginal juveniles, the ones
not now tried as adults in State court, would be tried as adults under
this legislation. I have not seen any study that contradicts them, but
all of the studies I have seen show that that will actually increase
the crime rate because when they are tried as adults, they are also
locked up with adult criminals and come out worse than they went in.
No amendments in this rule are allowed to address the death penalty,
which has been shown to be racially discriminatory, which has been
shown to have no effect on crime and shown to be so inappropriate that
the Supreme Court with seven Republican appointees sitting on the court
ruled that, for juveniles, the death penalty was unconstitutional. We
have not had an opportunity under the rule to address that, not even
the fact that under the bill you can have a capital prosecution for
accidents, accidental actions. It does not require an intent to kill
someone. It could have been an accident. There was no amendment allowed
for that.
There is no amendment to allow the little money in the bill to go to
local law enforcement. Virtually all of the money goes to Federal law
enforcement. If you are going to have an effect on gangs, the money
ought to go to where the gangs are actually fought, on the local.
Mr. Speaker, we have not had the amendments to actually address the
kinds of problems that are in the bill. It came out at the last minute.
My colleague from Virginia has mentioned all the people supporting it.
I know one letter we received talked about the need for all of the
money in the bill going to law enforcement and help get the money for
law enforcement in the bill to the localities, and you look in the bill
and there is no money. It is all for Federal law enforcement, Federal
prosecution. Virtually nothing for local law enforcement. If you look
at the title of the bill, you think you are doing something. In fact,
you are doing nothing.
Mr. Speaker, the impact of this bill is going to round up a few low-
level people committing little crimes, some even misdemeanors, and they
will be getting 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. If we are
going to do something about crime, if you ask anybody that knows what
they are talking about what to do about juvenile crime, they will tell
you prevention and early intervention. Keep the kids out of trouble and
if they get in trouble to begin with, get them right back on track.
There is no money in here for prevention.
We have heard a crack about arts and crafts for gang members. Let me
tell you something. Arts and crafts for gang members will do more to
reduce juvenile crime and gang membership than the provisions in this
bill, and everybody knows it.
I have got to admit that the sound bites and slogans are stronger on
the other side, but all of the studies show that this bill would do
virtually nothing to reduce juvenile crime and is certainly not an
effective use of the taxpayers' money if your goal is to actually
reduce crime. You need to put the money into prevention and early
intervention. We lead the world in incarceration already. If you are
going to get any more crime reduction out of the next dollar we are
going to spend, it ought to go into prevention and early intervention
to keep the kids out of trouble; 850,000 kids are not going to come out
of gangs because we pass this legislation. They are in gangs now
because they have nothing to do in the afternoon. We need to defeat
this bill and do something serious about juvenile crime.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Virginia who just spoke is a brilliant lawyer, and
I know he is not missing any points; but I want to say it is very
important that the rest of our colleagues understand, we know that all
of these crimes mentioned here today are illegal. But the point is,
this bill addresses the dismantling of the systems that support gangs,
and I think it is very important that we keep that in mind.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Reichert), 8 years King County sheriff and 30 years as a police
officer.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, as the Congressman said, I have 33 years
of law enforcement experience. In fact, up until January 3 of this
year, I was a cop. One of the things I know about cops is that they
need all kinds of tools, and we do need police officers on the street;
but one of the most important things that cops want is to know that
their community supports them, local, State, and Federal.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about a very serious problem.
Across the country we are seeing a resurgence of organized crime
sprawling into our towns and our neighborhoods. Gangs are becoming a
magnet for youth, as they long to belong to something. This is hardly
the team we want our children to join.
Gang violence in America is not a sudden problem. It has been a part
of urban life for years, offering an aggressive definition and identity
to those seeking a place to belong in the chaos of a large metropolitan
area. However, as gangs gain momentum and invade smaller communities,
it is time to take a more serious and focused approach. The gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) addresses this critical problem today in the
Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005.
Prior to being elected to sheriff, as I said, I served 33 years as a
cop. I have worked with prostitutes, drug dealers, and gang bangers for
that length of time. My colleagues in the sheriff's office and I
actively fought to curb the growth and influence of gangs. I know not
only in my home State of Washington but across the country, law
enforcement officers recognize gangs for the serious threat they are to
our community.
I believe in taking problems head on, not running away. You evaluate
the facts, you make a decision, and then you see the solution through.
We have recognized the consequence of letting this situation go forward
for far too long. It is dangerous to all Americans. Whether a gang
currently has a presence in our hometowns or not, we need to take a
careful look at where this issue is headed and stop the influence of
gangs before it spirals out of control and out of our hands.
The United States Department of Justice cites that there are
currently 25,000 active gangs in 3,000 jurisdictions across this
country; 25,000 gangs. That equals 750,000 gang members. If growth
continues, we could be looking at 1 million gang members across the
country in only a few years. These groups are a funnel to criminal
activities, allowing a central point to encourage violence and a family
that preaches drug trafficking, murder, theft, prostitution, and rape.
In fact, street gangs are the primary distributor of illegal drugs in
the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I am a man of faith who believes deeply in family and
responsibility. Our obligation is to American families and communities.
We need to look out for their futures. We need to direct our youth
towards a path of success and progress as productive members of society
looking towards a better country. We cannot afford to lose those
talented youths in our community to a life on the street with drugs and
a gang hierarchy whose form of discipline is violence.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Virginia's efforts to deter
gangs across the country and urge my colleagues to support the rule and
vote for final passage later today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Washington just said that our local law
enforcement would appreciate the support of the Federal Government.
{time} 1130
I could not agree with him more. Then why are we cutting community
policing programs? I mean it does not make any sense to me. And why did
the Committee on Rules last night deny the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Capuano) and the gentleman from
[[Page H3126]]
New York (Mr. Weiner) the right to offer an amendment that reauthorizes
the Community Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program for fiscal
year 2006, 2008? That was denied. We could have had a vote on the floor
today on that amendment and a full debate, and that was denied in the
Committee on Rules.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) had an amendment that would
require that the purchase of firearms, ammunition and explosives to be
made in person and to require records to be kept on how the purchases
were made. The reason why this is an important amendment because more
and more we find out that gangs are purchasing weapons over the
internet. Yet that was not even made in order. I know the gun lobby
does not like that amendment, but even so, if we want to make sure that
gang members have a more difficult time getting access to firearms, we
certainly should have debated that amendment.
The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) had an amendment that
would make it illegal to transfer a firearm to any individual that the
Federal Government has designated as a suspected or known gang member
or terrorist. I am trying to find where the controversy is with that
amendment. Yet the Committee on Rules would not allow that amendment to
be made in order on the floor today.
The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt),
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) had an amendment that
strikes the section of the bill that allows the Attorney General to
charge as adults those juveniles who commit violent crimes and are at
least 16 years old. We can disagree on whether or not juveniles should
be tried as adults, but, nonetheless, it is an important enough issue
that we should have debated it on the floor here today and let Members
decide that. And yet that was not made in order.
The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) had an
amendment that establishes funding for prevention and intervention
programs for the suppression of youth and gang violence. That was
deemed to not be made in order.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardoza), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson),
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) had an
amendment that authorizes the expansion and the enhancement of law
enforcement and community-based prevention and intervention programs
targeting criminal street gangs, gang members and at-risk youth. That
was ruled out of order by the Committee on Rules. I mean, I can go on
and on and on. There are really good ideas here, and yet, for whatever
reason, the Committee on Rules last night said they are not going to
have their day on the House floor. And I do not understand why, and
nobody who has spoken on the other side has explained to me why those
amendments were not made in order, not even the Chairman of the
Committee on Rules. We have the time. This is an important issue. These
amendments should have been made in order. And, quite frankly, I think
it is a disgrace and does a great disservice to a lot of people in this
country who care about this issue that these Members were denied their
right to offer these amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the bill's author.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I think, if one is around here long enough,
they get to the point where they do not believe they could be shocked
by anything. But when I heard the other side a while ago say that they
believe that giving arts and crafts to violent gang members will do
more to deter crime than empowering law enforcement agents and locking
up gang members in jail, that, I have to admit, still shocks me.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the National
Latino Peace Officers Association, which supports all the provisions of
this bill and asks that this bill be passed; from the Fraternal Order
of Police that supports this bill and asks that it be passed; from the
National Association of Police Organizations, which supports this bill
and asks that it be passed; from the National Sheriffs' Association,
which supports the provisions of this bill and asks that it be passed;
from the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, which supports the
provisions of this bill and asks that it be passed; from the National
Troopers Coalition; from the California Gang Investigators Association;
from the Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs office; and from the Major County
Sheriffs' Association.
And, Mr. Speaker, we will have a lot more as the day goes on.
Major County Sheriff's Association,
Alexandria, Virginia, April 20, 2005.
Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the Major County
Sheriffs' Association, I am writing to express our support
for H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection
Act of 2005.'' This much needed legislation takes a necessary
step toward addressing the growing epidemic of gang violence
that is affecting our entire nation and has even stretched
into some of our most rural communities.
The Department of Justice estimates there are currently
over 25,000 gangs and over 750,000 gang members who are
active in more than 3,000 jurisdictions across the United
States. Gang activity has been directly linked to the
narcotics trade, human trafficking, identification
documentation falsification and the use of firearms to commit
deadly shootings.
H.R. 1279 would address the growing problem of gang
violence by creating a rational strategy to identify,
apprehend and prosecute gangs across the nation.
Specifically, the bill would provide for the designation of
High Intensity Gang Areas (HIGAs) to identify, target and
eliminate violent gangs in areas where gang activity is
particularly prevalent.
The bill would also create a statute to prosecute criminal
gangs similar to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute (RICO) that has proven so effective
against organized crime, and would provide more than $385
million over the next five years in grants to support
Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts against
violent gangs, and to coordinate law enforcement agencies'
efforts to share intelligence and jointly prosecute violent
gangs.
Finally, under H.R. 1279, several categories of gang-
related offense would be subject to mandatory minimum
sentences of at least 30 years in prison for cases of
kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault or maiming.
The ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of
2005'' is a comprehensive piece of legislation that addresses
both the enforcement and prosecution aspects of the battle
against gang violence.
Thank you for your time and attention, as well as your
continued support of law enforcement.
Sincerely,
Sheriff Michael J. Bouchard,
MCSA Vice President--Legislative Affairs.
Sheriff James A. Karnes,
MCSA President.
____
Association for
Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Inc.,
Los Angeles, California, April 20, 2005.
Re H.R. 1179--Support; H.R. 1518--Support
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the members of
the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS),
which represents over 7,000 deputy sheriffs and district
attorney investigators in Los Angeles County. I am writing in
support of H.R. 1279, The Gang Deterrence and Community
Protection Act of 2005, and H.R. 1528, Defending America's
Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child
Protection Act of 2005.
H.R. 1279, The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act
of 2005 not only designates high intensity gang areas and
authorizes funds to combat gang activity, it creates a new
gang prosecution statute; increases penalties for violent
gang crimes; and limits a criminal street gang to a group or
association of three or more individuals that commit two or
more gang crimes.
H.R. 1528, Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access
to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005, provides
for sound statutory reforms of ineffective anti-drug laws
designed to protect children.
ALADS strongly supports both H.R. 1279, and H.R. 1528.
Sincerely,
Roy L. Burns,
President.
____
California Gang
Investigators Association,
Huntington Beach, CA, April 25, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: Mr. Chairman, as
President of the California Gang Investigators Association
(CGIA) I am writing to offer the support of the Association
for H.R. 1279, The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection
Act of 2005 and H.R.
[[Page H3127]]
1528, Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to
Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005. The
Association supports the legislative effort to curb gang
violence and the associated criminal drug networks that goes
hand-in-hand with street gang activity. We have supported the
efforts of Senators Hatch and Feinstein in their anti-gang
efforts and stand ready to be of any assistance we can be in
your committee's efforts to obtain the same goals.
Street gangs continue to spread their unique brand of urban
terrorism across our nation. Not only have they become
prevalent in most urban inner cities, but have become a
scourge in our rural communities as well, presenting a threat
to this nation's bread basket. As I travel around this
country lecturing to these communities it seems their primary
concern for their personal safety is not from some foreign
terrorist but their greatest fear is of the local street
gangs. Hundreds upon hundreds of Americans are slain every
year by street gangs, and thousands more injured.
This legislation provides new law which will aid in this
strugg1e, not only attacking the gangs but with its companion
bill, begins to focus on their drug business as well.
If our association can be of any further assistance to you
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Wesley D. McBride,
President.
____
National Troopers Coalition,
Green Bay, WI.
Re H.R. 1279--Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of
2005
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chair, House Judiciary Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: As Chairman of the National
Troopers Coalition, (NTC) I am writing to express our support
for H.R. 1279, Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act
of 2005. The NTC represents over 40,000 state troopers and
highway patrolmen throughout the United States.
We urge you to continue your work on fighting Gang Violence
in America; we support all of the provisions contained in
H.R. 1279.
Our members continue to deal with increased gang crimes and
violence, as we have for years. The provisions of H.R. 1279,
that in part deal with increased penalties, clarification of
definitions, and increased resources and appropriations will
greatly aid us and our law enforcement counterparts with gang
investigations, deterrence and prevention.
Accordingly, on behalf of our members, we fully support and
urge passage of H.R. 1279.
Sincerely,
Casey L. Perry,
Chairman, National Troopers Coalition.
____
The Law Enforcement
Alliance of America,
Falls Church, Va., April 19, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the more than
75,000 Members and Supporters of the Law Enforcement Alliance
of America (LEAA), I am writing to express our strong support
for the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005
(H.R. 1279). This legislation provides law enforcement and
prosecutors with much needed tools to combat the growing
organized threat of violence from criminal street gangs.
Today's gang violence problem is not one of neighborhoods,
but increasingly an interstate and even international
operation involving highly structured and extremely violent
criminal enterprises. H.R. 1279 recognizes this growing
menace and provides a much needed response.
By providing state and local law enforcement with the
additional resources to pursue such criminals and giving
prosecutors additional tools to punish such criminals. H.R.
1279 offers a significant opportunity to make an impact in
the fight against violent crime. I respectfully ask for your
support for this much needed federal initiative. If you have
any questions about LEAA's position on H.R. 1279 or any other
matter, feel free to have your staff contact our Legislative
Director, Kevin Watson at (703) 847-2677.
Sincerely,
James J. Fotis,
Executive Director.
____
National Sheriffs' Association,
Alexandria, Virginia, April 19, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washingtn, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: I am writing on behalf of the
National Sheriffs' Association and the 3,087 sheriffs across
the country to express our full support for H.R. 1279, the
``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005.''
This much needed legislation takes a necessary step toward
addressing the growing epidemic of gang violence that is
affecting our entire nation and has even stretched into some
of our most rural communities.
The Department of Justice estimates there are currently
over 25,000 gangs and over 750,000 gang members who are
active in more than 3,000 jurisdictions across the United
States. Gang activity has been directly linked to the
narcotlcs trade, human trafficking, identification
documentation falsification and the use of firearms to commit
deadly shootings.
H.R. 1279 would effectively address the growing problem of
gang violence by creating a rational strategy to identify,
apprehend, and prosecute gangs across the nation.
Specifically, the bill would provide for the designation of
High Intensity Gang Areas (HIGAs) to identify, target and
eliminate violent gangs in areas where gang activity is
particularly prevalent.
The bill would also create a statute to prosecute criminal
gangs similar to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute (RICO) that has proven so effective
against organized crime, and would provide more than $385
million over the next five years in grants to support
Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts against
violent gangs, and to coordinate law enforcement agencies'
efforts to share intelligence and jointly prosecute violent
gangs.
Finally, under H.R. 1279, several categories of gang-
related offense would be subject to mandatory minimum
sentences of at least 30 years in prison for cases of
kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault or maiming.
The ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of
2005'' is a comprehensive piece of legislation that addresses
both the enforcement and prosecution aspects of the battle
against gang violence.
The National Sheriffs' Association and its member sheriffs
fully endorse H.R. 1279 and thank you for your continued
support of law enforcement.
Sincerely,
Thomas N. Faust,
Executive Director.
____
National Association of
Police Organizations, Inc.
Washington. D.C., April 15, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the National
Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), representing
236,000 rank-and-file police officers from across the United
States, I would like to thank you for introducing the ``Gang
Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005,'' and advise
you of our support for the legislation. If enacted, this
legislation will greatly assist state and local law
enforcement in their efforts against gang expansion and
violence.
Recent studies on gangs have estimated that over 25,000
different gangs, comprising over 750,000 members are active
across the United States. 100 percent of all cities larger
than 250,000 have reported gang activity. Compounding this
problem, gangs have been directly linked to narcotics trade,
human trafficking, identification document falsification,
violent maiming, assault and murder, and the use of firearms
to commit deadly shootings. The ``Gang Deterrence and
Community Protection Act'' works to reduce gang violence by
designating High Intensity Gang Areas (HIGAs) and authorizing
$20 million per year over five years to combat gang activity.
It also creates a new gang prosecution statute focusing on
street gangs and increases the penalties for violent gang
crimes, strengthening prosecutors' ability to combat gang
activities.
NAPO looks forward to fighting for this legislation's
passage and I thank you for your continued support of law
enforcement. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me, or NAPO's Legislative Assistant, Andrea
Mournighan, at (202) 842-4420.
Sincerely
William J. Johnson,
Executive Director.
____
Grand Lodge,
Fraternal Order of Police,
Washington, DC, April 4, 2005.
Hon. J. Randy Forbes,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Dear Representative Forbes:,I am writing on behalf of the
members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our
strong support for H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and
Community Protection Act of 2005.''
This legislation will attack the growing problem of
criminal gang activity by providing increased Federal
funding, almost $390 million, to support Federal, State and
local law enforcement efforts to combat gang activity. The
bill aims to facilitate greater cooperation between law
enforcement officers and prosecutors at every level of
government by providing for the designation of certain
locations as ``high intensity interstate gang activity
areas.'' This strategy, modeled after the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program, will enable law enforcement
in these designated areas to build successful
multijurisdictional efforts targeting criminal street gangs
using Federal funds. Law enforcement agencies in these
designated areas will be able to call on Federal resources to
hire additional State and local prosecutors and purchase
technology to increase their abliity to identify and
prosecute violent offenders.
The legislation also creates new criminal gang prosecution
offenses and enhances existing gang and violent crime
penalties to deter and punish illegal gang activity. The bill
would also allow 16-year olds to be charged as adults in
Federal court for crimes of violence.
[[Page H3128]]
We believe that our nation's law enforcement officers can
be more effective at fighting the menace of criminal gangs if
they have the necessary resources that this legislation
provides. I want to commend you for your leadership on this
issue. If I can be of any further help on this or any other
issue, please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive
Director Jim Pasco through my Washington office.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
Nationl President.
____
April 18, 2005
Re Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act H.R. 1279
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chair, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: As the House Judiciary
Committee continues its work on Gang Violence in America, on
behalf of the National Latino Peace Officers Association
(NLPOA), we support all of the provisions contained in H.R.
1279 and urge the Committee to adopt all of the provisions to
strengthen federal law enforcement's capabilities on
combating the growing gang violence in America:
18 U.S.C. 521 Criminal Street Gang Prosecutions, increasing
the penalty for such criminal acts on behalf of a criminal
gang;
Defining Gang Crime for federal prosecution;
Increased Penalties for Racketeering Crimes on behalf of
the criminal gangs;
Modification of the Definition of a Crime of Violence; and
Increasing Resources and Appropriations in the newly
defined High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas.
NLPOA members have dealt with gang crimes and gang violence
for the last 32 years and are experts in this arena; with
respect to gang investigations, deterrence, and prevention.
The NLPOA recognizes that many gangs are more sophisticated
and have more resources than local police departments.
Designating federal resources through increase penalties and
federal task forces will help Keep America Safe!
Sincerely,
Felipe A. Ortiz,
NLPOA National President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What shocks me is that we have people who get up and talk about the
importance of supporting our local law enforcement officials, and at
the same time, we are supporting budgets that cut money to our local
law enforcement agencies.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the National
Council of La Raza opposing this bill. I also include for the Record a
statement that has been signed by the American Bar Association, the
American Civil Liberties Union, Chamber of Commerce of the United
States, the Children's Defense Fund, the Commission on Social Action of
Reform Judaism, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National
Urban League, Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights, the NAACP, the
National Federation of Independent Business, and the United States
Conference on Catholic Bishops, all in opposition to this legislation.
I also include for the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter that has been
signed by the President of Catholic Charities USA, also opposed to this
legislation. And I include for the Record, so that it is there, the 16
amendments that the majority of the Committee on Rules decided to not
make in order today on this important legislation.
National Council of La Raza,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2005.
Re Oppose provisions in the ``gang buster bill'' H.R. 1279
that prosecute youth as adults and impose mandatory
minimum sentences.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the National Council
of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Latino civil rights
organization in the U.S., I urge you to oppose provisions
contained in the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection
Act of 2005'' (H.R. 1279) which is on the suspension calendar
this week. Please be advised that NCLR will recommend that
votes relevant to the Latino community and final passage of
the bill be included in the National Hispanic Leadership
Agenda Congressional Scorecard.
The Latino community is directly affected by gang violence,
consequently NCLR is committed to finding a solution to
combat it; however, the approach in H.R. 1279 is ineffective,
irresponsible and simplistic, given that it does nothing to
get to the root causes of the problem, and it further
exacerbate youth violent behavior. H.R. 1279 will if enacted
into law, would have a disparate impact on Latino youth and
their families. This bill would undermine overa11 public
safety, given that it imposes excessively severe measures
aimed at only punishing and not reforming youth violent
behavior. Specifically, NCLR strongly opposes two
provisions--the prosecution and transfer of youth into the
adult system and the inclusion of various mandatory minimum
sentences for a broad category of offenses that are labeled
``gang crimes'' and numerous other offenses.
Section 115 of the bill allows for the prosecution and
transfer of youth into the adult system. The latest research
shows that transferring youth to adult status is a failed
public policy approach, resulting in the opposite of what
this bill is purporting to do. It will increase--not
decrease--youth violence. The research shows that young
people prosecuted as adults, compared to those prosecuted as
juveniles, are more likely to: (a) commit a greater number of
crimes upon release; (b) commit more violent crimes upon
release; and (c) commit crimes sooner upon release. The
research also shows that youth held in adult facilities,
compared to youth held in juvenile facilities, are five times
as likely to be sexually assaulted by other inmates, twice as
likely to be beaten by staff, 50% more likely to be assaulted
with a weapon, and eight times as likely to commit suicide.
With these kinds of risks, it does not make sense for the
House to pursue legislation that includes the power to
prosecute juveniles as adults in federal court for activities
that the states are already well-equipped--indeed, better-
equipped--to handle than the federal system. Also, putting
the transfer decision at the sole discretion of a prosecutor,
not a judge as the law currently requires, violates the most
basic principles of due process and fairness.
Section 103 of the bill includes and expands mandatory
minimum sentences for a broad category of offenses that are
deemed ``gang crime.'' Under this bill, the mandatory minimum
sentences for these crimes range: from 5 to 30 years.
Although the offenses are serious and individuals who are
convicted should be properly held accountable, mandatory
sentences often prevent judges from determining the
appropriate punishment. When judges are restricted by
mandatory sentences, they cannot assess an individua1s
culpability during the crime or other factors that have
bearing on recidivism, thus resulting in inappropriate
sentences.
Although mandatory minimums were intended to reduce the
racial disparities that were associated with indeterminate
sentencing, in practice they exacerbate and mask such
disparities by shifting discretion from the judge to the
prosecutor. Prosecutors retain the power to plea bargain by
offering defendants plea agreements that avoid the mandatory
penalty. Studies have shown that this discretion results in a
disparity in sentencing outcomes based largely on race and
quality of defense attorney. According to testimony from the
U.S. Sentencing Commission, in 1999, 39% of those receiving
mandatory sentences were Hispanic, 38% were African American,
and 23% were White. Hipanics comprised 44% of those subject
to five-year mandatory sentences in 1999, 37% of the ten-year
mandatory sentences, 20% of the 20-year mandatory sentences,
and 8% of the mandatory life sentences. The reality for
African American defendants is even bleaker.
NCLR respectfully asks you to oppose legislation that
prosecutes and transfers youth into the adult system and that
includes and expands mandatory minimum sentences. These
provisions will only exacerbate youth violent behavior, at a
time when data from the FBI's Uniform Crime reporting program
that breaks down the age of people arrested for serious
offenses in 2003 showed that the number of people under 18
arrested declined by 30%. Instead, NCLR calls for a
comprehensive research--based approach that gets at the root
causes of youth violence--which includes but is not limited
to prevention, treatment, and effective alternatives to
incarceration. If you have any questions please contact
Angela Arboleda, NCLR Civil Rights Policy Analyst, at (202)
776-1789.
Sincerely,
Janet Murguia,
President and CEO.
____
June 2, 2004.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We write to express our strong concern
about the unintended consequences that will result from
Section 206 of The Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence
Act of 2003--S. 1735. Although Section 206 has been removed
from the bill by amendment, we understand discussions are
underway to reinsert it.
Section 206 would change the general definition of a crime
of violence to require only a ``substantial risk of . . .
injury to a person or property,'' and not physical force.
Violence, however, is commonly defined as physical force.
Thus, removing the ``physical force'' requirement from crimes
of violence undermines the purpose of having a special
category of heinous crimes.
Moreover, this new definition would broaden crimes of
violence to include a number of regulatory violations
targeted at businesses. For example, felony violations of
environmental statutes, such as the Clean Water Act, Clean
Air Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which
criminalize violations of both statutory and regulatory
requirements, could be deemed crimes of violence. In many
cases, these violations are ``technical'' in nature,
including recordkeeping, reporting, training, etc, and have
very low criminal intent standards. With a mere ``knowing''
violation--which requires neither knowledge by the defendant
of the underlying regulations or the law nor an intention to
violate the law--a business and its
[[Page H3129]]
officers and employees are especially vulnerable to criminal
penalties. If conviction under the particular statute can
result in a I-year prison sentence, thus making it a felony,
and if the violation risked injury to a person or the
property of another, under the proposed new definition the
violation would be a violent crime.
This designation serves as a trigger for a host of
consequences, including longer sentences under the federal
sentencing guidelines, and a doubling of the statute of
limitations. The current statute of limitations for all
environmental crimes is five years from the date the
violation occurred. As a crime of violence, the statute of
limitations would be the greater of either ten years from the
occurrence or eight years from discovery of the alleged
violation. In addition, conviction of any crime that is
labeled a ``crime of violence'' under this proposed statute
brings deportation without right of appeal for legal
immigrants working for a company, and potential federal money
laundering charges, which can result in substantial asset
forfeiture.
While we certainly recognize that these consequences were
not the intent of this legislation, this provision could have
an unjust impact on business. We ask that you give serious
consideration our concerns as you continue to work on this
issue. Thank you for your attention to this very important
matter.
Sincerely,
Chamber of Commerce of the United States.
Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association.
National Association of Manufacturers.
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
Business Civil Liberties, Inc.
American Chemistry Council.
____
No. 25 Capuano/Weiner: The amendment reauthorizes the
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program for
FY2006-FY2008.
No. 26 Crowley: The amendment requires that the purchase of
firearms, ammunition and explosives to be made in person and
requires records to be kept on how the purchases were made.
No. 23 Jackson Lee: The amendment would make it illegal to
transfer a firearm to any individual that the Federal
government has designated as a suspected or known gang member
or terrorist. It also establishes a system that would assist
any individual who is wrongly included on such a list to have
his or her name removed.
No. 24 Jackson Lee/Scott/Delahunt/Waters: The amendment
strikes the section of the bill that allows the Attorney
General to charge as adults those juveniles who commit
violent crimes and are at least 16 years old.
No. 15 Eddie Bernice Johnson: The amendment establishes
funding for prevention and intervention programs for the
suppression of youth and gang violence.
No. 2 Schiff/Cardoza/Watson/Linda Sanchez: The amendment
authorizes the expansion and enhancement of law enforcement
and community-based prevention and intervention programs
targeting criminal street gangs, gang members, and at-risk
youth.
No. 21 Waters: The amendment creates a ``Gang Exit
Program'' to facilitate the re-entry of ex-gang members into
society. This program would provide relocation programs,
educational programs, special student loans, and housing to
ex-gang members.
Others
No. 14 Davis (IL): The amendment strikes the provision in
the bill that calls for a minimum mandatory 10 year jail
term.
No. 12 Davis (IL): This amendment would strike section 110
and preserve language in current law regarding venue in
capital cases.
No. 13 Davis (IL): The amendment strikes the section of the
bill that gives the Attorney General the discretion to charge
as adults juveniles who commit violent crimes and are at
least 16 years old.
No. 22 Jackson Lee: The amendment clarifies that the
defendant, and not just a member of the gang, must have
committed criminal activity related to the capital case in
the jurisdiction where the prosecutor seeks to bring the
charge.
No. 16 Eddie Bernice Johnson: The amendment establishes
funding for regional databases that track gang activity in
high intensity gang areas. These databases contain critical
information on gangs, gang members, firearms, criminal
activities and histories, vehicles, and other fields of
information necessary to investigators in solving gang
related crimes.
No. 7 Scott: The amendment makes application of the death
penalty under the bill contingent upon appropriation of the
authorized levels to protect innocence under Title IV of the
``Justice For All Act of 2004.''
No. 8 Scott: The amendment restricts the application of the
death penalty to intentional acts of the defendant.
No. 9 Scott: The amendment strikes section 115, which gives
the Attorney General authority to prosecute certain juveniles
without court assessment or review.
No. 10 Scott: The amendment uses the $57.5 million
authorized in the bill for 94 new U.S. Attorneys to go,
instead, to local law enforcement to prevent and reduce the
formation or continuation of juvenile gangs and the use and
sale of illegal drugs by juveniles.
No. 11 Scott: The amendment modifies the definition of a
``gang crime'' so that only the more serious violent offenses
are included.
______
May 6, 2005.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities USA, we
urge you to oppose provisions in H.R. 1279, Gang Deterrence
and Community Protection Act of 2005, the (Gang Bill) that
would expand the use of the death penalty, treat juveniles as
adults and impose mandatory minimum sentences.
First, we strongly oppose any provision in the bill that
would expand the use of the death penalty. As you may be
aware, the bishops of the United States oppose the use of the
death penalty. Catholic teaching on capital punishment is
clear, ``If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human
lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and
the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself
to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete
conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to
the dignity of the human person'' (Catechism of the Catholic
Church).
Secondly, we urge you to eliminate any provisions in the
legislation that would result in the expanded ``transfer'' or
``waiver'' of youth to the adult criminal system and/or
placing an additional number of youth in adult correctional
facilities. While there is no question that violent and
dangerous youth need to be confined for our safety and
theirs, we cannot support provisions that treat children as
though they are equal to adults. As we stated in our 2000
pastoral statement on criminal justice, we believe that
placing juveniles in the adult court system is not a solution
to reducing gang activity.
We bishops cannot support policies that treat young
offenders as though they are adults. The actions of the most
violent youth leave us shocked and frightened and therefore
they should be removed from society until they are no longer
dangerous. But society must never respond to children who
have committed crimes as though they are somehow equal to
adults--fully formed in conscience and fully aware of their
actions. Placing children in adult jails is a sign of
failure, not a solution. (Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and
Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal
Justice, November 15, 2000).
Additionally, removing youth from state juvenile justice
systems greatly reduces their chances of receiving necessary
treatment and intervention programs. Unlike state systems
around the country, the federal system does not have any
specialized programs or facilities to accommodate young
people or to a address the root problems, such as abuse, that
these children are experiencing at home or on the streets.
This emphasis on swift punishment rather than effective
treatment and intervention demonstrates a fundamental
misunderstanding of the street gang culture and is tantamount
to giving up on our children--something that our faith
tradition teaches we should never do. Rather, we believe the
challenge as responsible adults is to create a fairer and
more effective youth justice system, where there is a balance
between prevention, treatment and intervention that gives
young people a chance to make better choices. Unfortunately,
we believe several provisions in H.R. 1279 do not rise to the
challenge.
Finally, we urge you to oppose language in the bill that
includes and expands mandatory minimum sentences for a broad
category of offenses that are deemed gang crime. In the Gang
Bill, the mandatory minimum sentences for gang related crimes
range from five to thirty years. Although the offenses are
serious and individuals who are convicted ought to be
properly held accountable, rigid sentencing formulations
could prevent judges from properly assessing an individual's
culpability during the crime or other factors that have
bearing on recidivism, thus sometimes resulting in harsh and
inappropriate sentences. From our experience, arbitrarily
expanding mandatory minimum sentences does nothing to deter
youth gang violence and we urge you to oppose any such
provisions.
Thank you for your consideration of this very important
issue. Should you have any questions or comments, please do
not hesitate to contact Mr. Andrew Rivas in our office of
Social Development and World Peace, 202-541-3190,
[email protected], or Ms. Lucreda Cobbs at Catholic Charities
USA, 703-549-1390, [email protected]. With
every good wish, we are
Faithfully yours,
Most Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio,
Diocese of Brooklyn, Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee,
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Rev. Larry Snyder,
President, Catholic Charities USA.
______
American Civil Liberties Union,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2005.
Dear Representative: Oppose the ineffective policies
proposed in H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community
Protection Act of 2005.
Representative Randy Forbes (R-VA) has introduced H.R.1279,
the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005
(``Gang bill''). The Gang bill could subject innocent people
to the death penalty, creates numerous discriminatory
mandatory minimum sentences, could result in wrongfully
[[Page H3130]]
convictions based on unreliable evidence, and creates more
serious juvenile offenders by incarcerating children in adult
prisons. H.R. 1279 is scheduled for a vote on the House Boor
on Wednesday, May 11, 2005, we strongly urge you to oppose
this legislation.
Congress should not expand the Federal death penalty until
it ensures innocent people are not on death row.
Expansion of the federal death penalty undermines the very
reforms that were enacted in last year's Justice for All Act
(P.L. 108-405), which addressed some systemic problems with
the federal death penalty. H.R. 1279 would create several new
offenses and make them punishable by the death penalty as
well as increase the penalty for several existing federal
offenses to the possibility of a death sentence.
The death penalty is in need of reform, not expansion.
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 119
prisoners on death row have now been exonerated. Chronic
problems, including inadequate defense counsel and racial
disparities, plague the death penalty system in the United
States. The expansion of the death penalty potential for gang
crimes creates an opportunity for more arbitrary application
of the death penalty. States continue to address the systemic
problems with the administration of the death penalty by
implementing reform and moratorium efforts, while the federal
government, in H.R. 1279, is moving to expand the death
penalty in lieu of enacting or implementing reforms on the
federal level.
In addition to expanding the number of federal death
penalty crimes, Section 110 of the bill expands venue in
capital cases to the point that any location even
tangentially related to the crime could be the site of a
trial. Studies of the federal death penalty show that a
person prosecuted in Texas is much more likely to be charged,
tried and sentenced to death in a capital case than a person
who is prosecuted for the same crime in Massachusetts. This
bill will exacerbate these geographic inequities that exist
in the federal death penalty system. The wide range of
discretion in both what to charge and where to bring the
charge will give prosecutors tremendous latitude to forum
shop. This broad discretion will increase the racial and
geographic disparities already at play in the federal death
penalty.
People could be convicted of a ``gang'' crime even if they
are not members of a gang.
This bill would impose severe penalties for a collective
group of three or more people who commit ``gang'' crimes.
Even more disconcerting is that a person could receive the
death penalty for the illegal participation in what would be
considered a ``criminal street gang'' while having no idea or
intention of being a part of a so-called ``gang.'' H.R. 1279
revises the already broad definition of ``criminal street
gang'' to an even more ambiguous standard of a formal or
informal group or association of three (3) or more people who
commit two (2) or more ``gang'' crimes. The number of people
required to form a gang decreases from five (5) people in an
ongoing group under current law to three (3) people who could
just be associates or casual acquaintances under this
proposed legislation.
Under the Gang bill a ``continuing series'' of crimes does
not have to be established to charge a person with a gang
crime. Presently, the government has to establish that
criminal street gangs engaged ``within the past five (5)
years in a continuing series of offenses.'' The continuing
series of offenses under current law is essential to
preserving the concept of gang activity that the law is
trying to target, i.e. criminal activity that has some type
of connection to a tight knit group of people. This broader
definition of gang crime in H.R. 1279 would result in people
being convicted of ``gang'' crimes that are neither ongoing
in nature nor connected to each other, and could occur 10, 15
or 20 years apart.
H.R. 1279 further erodes federal judges' sentencing
discretion by proposing harsher mandatory minimum sentences.
This legislation further erodes the sentencing discretion
of judges by imposing mandatory minimums that would result in
unfair and discriminatory prison sentences. Many of the
enhanced gang penalties in this bill are mandatory minimum
sentences or death. Mandatory minimum sentences deprive
judges of the ability to impose sentences that fit the
particular offense and offender. Although in theory
mandatory minimums were created to address disparate
sentences that resulted from indeterminate sentencing
systems, in reality they shift discretion from the judge
to the prosecutor. Prosecutors hold all the power over
whether a defendant gets a plea bargain in order for that
defendant to avoid the mandatory sentence. It is not clear
what standards (if any) prosecutors use to offer plea
bargains, therefore only a few defendants get the benefit
of avoiding the mandatory sentence. This creates unfair
and inequitable sentences for people who commit similar
crimes, thus contributing to the very problem mandatory
minimums were created to address.
H.R. 1279 jeopardizes a person's right to a fair trial and
creates the possibility that innocent people would be held
for long periods of time prior to a trial.
Innocent people could be convicted of crimes they did not
commit if the statute of limitations is extended as proposed
in this legislation. The Gang bill proposes to extend the
statute of limitations for non-capital crimes of violence.
Generally, the statute of limitations for non-capital federal
crimes is five (5) years after the offense is committed. This
bill would extend that limitation for crimes of violence to
15 years after the offense was committed or the continuing
offense was completed. For example, if a violent crime was
committed in 2005, but a person was not indicted until 2020,
that individual could be charged with a crime 15 years later.
In 2020, 15 years after the crime, alibi witnesses could have
disappeared or died, other witnesses' memories would have
faded and evidence may be unreliable. The use of questionable
evidence could affect a person's ability to defend themselves
against charges and to receive a fair trial.
Shifting the burden of proof for pretrial detention in some
cases involving guns could result in serious injustices and
interfere with an accused person's defense. This legislation
would create a rebuttal presumption against bail for people
accused of certain firearms offenses during the commission of
serious drug crimes. A person who is presumed innocent and
has not been found guilty of any crime could be held for
months or years without the government having made any
showing that he or she is dangerous or a flight risk. Making
it more difficult for an accused person to be released on
bail prior to trial hinders a defendant's ability to assist
their defense lawyer with investigating the facts of the case
and preparing their defense.
Children would be put in Federal prison with little
opportunity for education or rehabilitation.
Under the Gangs bill, more children will become hardened
criminals after being tried in federal court and incarcerated
in adult prisons. Currently under federal law, when the
government recommends trying a juvenile as an adult in
federal court various factors must be considered by the court
before deciding whether the criminal prosecution of a young
person is in the interest of justice. These factors include
the age, social background, and the intellectual development
and psychological maturity of the child. H.R. 1279 would give
the prosecutor the discretion to determine when to try a
young person in federal court as an adult, if the juvenile is
16 years of age or older and commits a crime of violence.
The decision by a prosecutor to try a juvenile as an adult
cannot be reviewed by a judge under this legislation. This
unreviewable process of transferring youth to adult federal
court is particularly troubling when juveniles are not
routinely prosecuted in the federal system and there are no
resources or facilities to address the needs of youth. The
federal government should continue to let states deal with
juveniles in their family court systems that were created to
address the needs and provide services to young people.
Furthermore, a 1996 study showed that youth transferred to
adult court in Florida were a third more likely to reoffend
than those sent to the juvenile justice system for the same
crime and with similar prior records. Of the youth in this
study who committed new crimes, those sent to adult court
reoffended at twice the rate of those sent to juvenile court.
This research emphasizes the need for juveniles to be held
accountable in the juvenile justice system, which has more
resources to address the problems that cause children to come
to the attention of the court system.
While efforts to address gang crime are very important to
maintaining public safety, this legislation proposes to
confront crime at the expense of the right to a fair trial,
at the risk of convicting innocent people and unnecessary
exposure to the death penalty. H.R. 1279 will not solve the
problem of gang crime in this country, thus members should
oppose this bill when the House of Representatives votes on
Wednesday, May 11, 2005.
Sincerely,
Greg Nojeim,
Acting Director.
Jesselyn McCurdy,
Legislative Counsel.
______
Vote Wednesday, May 11--Oppose hr. 1279 ``The Gang Deterrence and
Community Protection Act,'' Ineffective and Costly Federal Intrusion in
State Law Enforcement
Federalizes traditional state crimes without justification
H.R. 1279 would federalize all state felonies if related to
a ``criminal street gang'' and a host of state violent
offenses (whether or not gang-related), thereby significantly
expanding the current list of over 4,000 federal crimes
(according to a recent Federalist Society report).
Traditional state jurisdiction over juvenile matters also
would be undermined.
This approach will skew traditional federal law enforcement
priorities, undercut the superior efforts of the states to
deal with violent crimes and juvenile offenders, and may
exceed constitutional limits on federal power.
Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, in recent
testimony to Congress, recommended enforcing existing laws
rather than passing new ones. Existing federal statutes--
including RICO, Continuing Criminal Enterprise and drug
trafficking statutes--have been used to prosecute and
severely punish gang members, and these laws are more than
adequate to prosecute any gang-related offenses that warrant
federal intervention.
Promotes widely discredited approaches to gang and youth crime
H.R. 1279 does nothing to promote proven effective programs
for dealing with criminal
[[Page H3131]]
street gangs and youth crimes, such as family and school-
based interventions and mentoring programs. The Heritage
Foundation provided recent testimony on what measures
Congress should support to address the gang problem--
including fostering stable neighborhoods, providing after-
school activities, and improving local economies--and H.R.
1279 does none of these things.
H.R. 1279 would result in more youth being prosecuted as
adults in the federal system despite research showing that
youth transferred to the adult criminal justice system are
more likely to re-offend than similarly situated youth who
remain in the juvenile justice system.
As the Judicial Conference of the United States has stated,
``primary responsibility for prosecuting juveniles has
traditionally been reserved for the states,'' and ``the
federal criminal justice system has little experience and few
resources'' for juvenile defendants.
Exacerbates racial disparities and other significant flaws in the
criminal justice system
H.R. 1279 expands three criminal justice policies--
mandatory minimum sentences, capital punishment, and youth
transfer to adult prosecution--that are discriminatory
towards minority communities.
Attached to the new federal crimes are 24 new mandatory
minimum sentences, which will transfer sentencing power from
judges to prosecutors, prescribe unconscionably severe
sentences, and increase unwarranted disparity, including
racial disparity. Similarly, H.R. 1279 indiscriminately
raises penalties for a wide variety of offenses that have
nothing to do with street gangs, ranging from carjacking to
regulatory violations (e.g., Clean Water Act).
H.R. 1279 attaches the death penalty to a variety of
traditional state crimes and allows prosecutors to forum
shop, expanding this error-prone and discriminatory system
and flouting community standards regarding the
appropriateness of the death penalty for certain crimes.
Some Organizations Opposing H.R. 1279
American Bar Association. American Civil Liberties Union.
Chamber of Commerce of the United States.
Children's Defense Fund.
Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
National Urban League.
Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights NAACP.
National Council of La Raza.
National Federation of Independent Business.
United States conference of Catholic Bishops.
For more information, including a full list of opposing
organizations, go to www.nacdl.org/Gangs
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If
the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the
House to consider the Capuano-Weiner amendment on the COPS program.
This amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules last night but was
defeated on a straight party-line vote. This amendment will reauthorize
the Community Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program, for the
next 3 years. The COPS program, created as a result of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, focuses on crime
prevention at the local level. This program puts law enforcement
professionals on the streets and assigns them a beat so they can build
mutually beneficial relationships with the people that they serve. By
earning the trust of members of their community and making those
individuals invest in their own safety, community policing makes law
enforcement more efficient and makes America safer.
Mr. Speaker, if we are really serious about stopping the growing gang
problem that is occurring in this country, we need to start at the
local level, and we need to include prevention as well as enforcement.
I know of no better program to meet this worthy goal than the COPS
program.
Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent
consideration of the gang deterrence bill and it will not affect any of
the amendments that are in order under this rule. But a ``no'' vote
will allow us to add this important amendment that is one of our most
effective tools in the war against violence.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, if we are truly interested
in dealing with the gang problem in this country, we need to do more
than pass legislation that sounds tough. We need to have legislation
that is tough, that will do the job. We need to do more than a press
release here.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As we bring debate on this rule to a close, I must stress the
importance of strengthening our communities' efforts against gang
crime. Like other forms of organized crime, gangs are at the center of
drug violence, identity theft, bank robberies and many of the deadly
shootings we read about in the local papers. We need to act in one
strong voice to indicate that our laws have a purpose, that our
prosecutors and law enforcement officers mean business. Gangs are a
national problem, and they will not go away by simply putting them into
an arts and crafts program or opening up a gymnasium to let them play
midnight basketball. We can prevent the formation of gangs by
strengthening our families, and we can deter their crimes by breaking
their organization and putting them in jail. Gangs are no longer simply
found in the largest cities but have made their way into our rural and
suburban communities as well.
Gangs are a problem which need a resolution because the cost is in
human lives. One of the more important aspects of the Gang Deterrence
and Community Protection Act is mandatory minimum sentencing. With
mandatory sentencing, law enforcement will gain leverage over the
lower-level gang members, leverage that will put pressure on a gang
member to ``roll over'' on their leadership. With cooperation comes the
ability to take down an entire gang network, which is the desired
effect of this legislation. If there is no threat of doing hard time,
there is no incentive to cooperate with law enforcement investigators.
In fact, minimal sentencing of much shorter time is often viewed by
low-level 16- and 17-year-old gang members as a badge of honor, so-
called ``earning your bones.'' They come out of prison in 6 months to 2
years and move up the gang chain of command. Plain and simple,
mandatory minimum penalties are an important piece in protecting the
public from violent gangs by taking down the system that supports them.
Mr. Speaker, mandatory sentencing, this is not a new concept. In
fact, the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2002 contained 20-year
mandatory minimums for child abductions and earned the support of 178
Democrats at final passage. Mandatory minimum sentences were part of
the 2003 PROTECT Act, which passed this body by a vote of 400 to 25.
The Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act contained mandatory minimum
sentences, and it passed on suspension. An amendment to the
intelligence bill that contained mandatory minimum sentencing to assure
appropriate penalties for serious offenses such as possession of
atomic, biological and chemical weapons passed 385 to 30. Mandatory
minimum sentencing has been widely supported by this House and I
believe works to deter crime. Getting tough on crime requires tough and
uniform enforcement. We cannot afford to relent in our efforts to deter
gang crime and enforce our laws. We need to address this problem while
we have the opportunity and before it grows further out of control. We
need to invest in new technology, unify our intelligence and strengthen
our sentencing so law enforcement will have the tools to get gangs off
the street.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and passage of the
underlying bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
disappointment with the structured rule that has been set forth for
debate on H.R. 1279 the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act
of 2005.'' This bill among other things, could subject innocent people
to the death penalty, creates numerous discriminatory mandatory minimum
sentences, could result in wrongful convictions based on unreliable
evidence, and creates more serious juvenile offenders by incarcerating
children in adult prisons. These are very serious issues.
[[Page H3132]]
Issues that warrant extensive debate and the opportunity to fix these
problems before the negative impact is felt. The current rule does not
allow for such debate.
Before concluding, I feel it is important that I briefly mention my
three amendments that were not ruled in order. My first amendment would
have removed Section 110 of the bill. As written in the bill, a
prosecutor could bring a capital case in a district that had only a
limited connection with a crime. My amendment would have clarified that
the defendant must have committed criminal activity related to the
capital case in the jurisdiction where the prosecutor seeks to bring
the charge. In essence, it would have stopped forum shopping which is
currently allowed under the bill.
My second amendment would have deleted Section 115 of the bill which
deals with the transfer of juveniles to adult courts. More
specifically, the amendment would have prevented the transferring of
juveniles from juvenile courts to adult courts when a juvenile has
committed an act, which if committed by an adult, would be a felony. If
this section is allowed to remain in the bill, more children will
become hardened criminals after being tried in federal court and
incarcerated in adult prisons. Currently under federal law, when the
government recommends trying a juvenile as an adult in federal court
various factors must be considered by the court before deciding whether
the criminal prosecution of a young person is in the interest of
justice. These factors include the age, social background, and the
intellectual development and psychological maturity of the child.
The decision by a prosecutor to try a juvenile as an adult cannot be
reviewed by judge under this legislation. This unreviewable process of
transferring youth to adult federal court is particularly troubling
when juveniles are not routinely prosecuted in the federal system and
there are no resources or facilities to address the needs of youth.
My third amendment was very straightforward. It would have closed the
glaring loophole which currently exists in our federal gun laws by
making it illegal to transfer a firearm to any individual that the
federal government has designated as a suspected or known gang member
or terrorist. As many of you know, under current law, neither suspected
nor actual membership in a gang or terrorist organization is a
sufficient ground, in and of itself, to prevent the purchase of a
dangerous firearm. In fact, according to a recently released GAO
report, over the course of a nine-month span last year, a total of
fifty-six (56) firearm purchase attempts were made by individuals
designated as known or suspected gang members or terrorists by the
federal government.
In forty-seven (47) of those cases, state and federal authorities
were forced to permit such transactions to proceed because officials
were unable to find any disqualifying information, such as a prior
felony conviction or court-determined `mental defect'. Thus, producing
a situation whereby suspected or known gang members were, and continue
to be, free to obtain as many guns as they desire.
In closing, these are all very important amendments and were aimed at
fixing many of the problems associated with H.R. 1279. Despite the
structured rule, I hope my colleagues on both sides will realize the
importance of this bill and give it the time and attention it deserves.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 268--Rule on H.R. 1279: The Gang
Deterrence & Community Protection Act of 2005
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in
order as though printed after the amendment numbered 10 in
the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by
Representative Capuano of Massachusetts or Representative
Weiner of New York or a designee. That amendment shall be
debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 2__. AUTHORIZATION AND CHANGE OF COPS PROGRAM TO SINGLE
GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 1701 of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd)
is amended--
(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall
carry out a single grant program under which the Attorney
General makes grants to States, units of local government,
Indian tribal governments, other public and private entities,
and multi-jurisdictional or regional consortia for the
purposes described in subsection (b).'';
(2) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
(3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (b), and
in that subsection--
(A) by striking ``Additional Grant Projects.--Grants made
under subsection (a) may include programs, projects, and
other activities to--'' and inserting ``Uses of Grant
Amounts.--The purposes for which grants made under subsection
(a) may be made are--'';
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (12) as
paragraphs (6) through (17), respectively;
(C) by inserting before paragraph (5) (as so redesignated)
the following new paragraphs:
``(1) rehire law enforcement officers who have been laid
off as a result of State and local budget reductions for
deployment in community-oriented policing;
``(2) hire and train new, additional career law enforcement
officers for deployment in community-oriented policing across
the Nation;
``(3) procure equipment, technology, or support systems, or
pay overtime, to increase the number of officers deployed in
community-oriented policing;
``(4) improve security at schools and on school grounds in
the jurisdiction of the grantee through--
``(A) placement and use of metal detectors, locks,
lighting, and other deterrent measures;
``(B) security assessments;
``(C) security training of personnel and students;
``(D) coordination with local law enforcement; and
``(E) any other measure that, in the determination of the
Attorney General, may provide a significant improvement in
security;
``(5) pay for officers hired to perform intelligence, anti-
terror, or homeland security duties exclusively;''; and
(D) by amending paragraph (9) (as so redesignated) to read
as follows:
``(8) develop new technologies, including interoperable
communications technologies, modernized criminal record
technology, and forensic technology, to assist State and
local law enforcement agencies in reorienting the emphasis of
their activities from reacting to crime to preventing crime
and to train law enforcement officers to use such
technologies;'';
(4) by redesignating subsections (e) through (k) as
subsections (c) through (i), respectively;
(5) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated) by striking
``subsection (i)'' and inserting ``subsection (g)''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Matching Funds for School Security Grants.--
Notwithstanding subsection (i), in the case of a grant under
subsection (a) for the purposes described in subsection
(b)(4)--
``(1) the portion of the costs of a program provided by
that grant may not exceed 50 percent;
``(2) any funds appropriated by Congress for the activities
of any agency of an Indian tribal government or the Bureau of
Indian Affairs performing law enforcement functions on any
Indian lands may be used to provide the non-Federal share of
a matching requirement funded under this subsection; and
``(3) the Attorney General may provide, in the guidelines
implementing this section, for the requirement of paragraph
(1) to be waived or altered in the case of a recipient with a
financial need for such a waiver or alteration.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1702 of title I of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-1) is amended in subsection (d)(2) by
striking ``section 1701(d)'' and inserting ``section
1701(b)''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(11)
of title I of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(11)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking clause (i) and all that
follows through the period at the end and inserting the
following:
``(i) $1,007,624,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(ii) $1,027,176,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(iii) $1,047,119,000 for fiscal year 2008.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``section 1701(f)'' and inserting ``section
1701(d)''; and
(B) by striking the third sentence.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 198, not voting 8, as follows:
[[Page H3133]]
[Roll No. 164]
YEAS--227
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--8
Berkley
Goode
Hastings (FL)
Hyde
Larson (CT)
Millender-McDonald
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
____________________