Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 61 (Wednesday, May 11, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 11, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3134-H3161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

GANG DETERRENCE AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 268 and rule XVIII, the
Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1279.

{time} 1403

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mrs. Miller of Michigan
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence
and Community Protection Act of 2005. This bill is a forward-looking
and comprehensive approach to a growing national threat: violent and
vicious criminal gangs in our communities.
According to the last National Youth Gang Survey, there are now
between 750,000 and 850,000 gang members in our country. Every city in
the country with a population of 250,000 or more has reported gang
activity. There are over 25,000 gangs in more than 3,000 jurisdictions
in the United States.
Criminal gangs are no longer just a local problem. In recent years,
gangs have become nationally-organized criminal syndicates. They are
disciplined criminal enterprises with leaders, managers and employees,
with training and structured associations, many of which are now
international in scope. They are dedicated to enriching themselves
through criminal activity and terrorizing our communities. The law-
abiding public and State and local law enforcement have sent us a
strong message: Act now and stop the scourge of violence in our
communities.
This legislation has four broad and significant purposes. First, the
bill authorizes the creation of anti-gang task forces that will bring
together Federal, State and local law enforcement to conduct complex
and significant gang prosecutions and provide a national infrastructure
for the sharing of gang information nationwide. Second, the bill
creates a new gang crime statute, akin to the RICO statute, that
addresses specific techniques and criminal strategies used by the
gangs. Third, the bill increases penalties and clarifies several
existing statutes for crimes typically committed by gangs. Fourth, the
bill adopts a limited measure to permit Federal prosecutors to charge
16- and 17-year-olds in Federal court without going through a lengthy
and outdated transfer procedure. Current law has hindered law
enforcement efforts to incapacitate violent 16- and 17-year-old gang
members in aggravated crimes of violence.
I would like to underscore one important aspect of this bill. It
adopts new

[[Page H3135]]

mandatory minimum penalties that address the seriousness of violent
crimes committed by gang members. For kidnapping, maiming and
aggravated sexual abuse, gang members will be subject to a 30-year
mandatory minimum. For assaults resulting in serious bodily injury;
that is, nearly killing or permanently disabling a person, gang members
will face a mandatory minimum of 20 years, and for all other gang
crimes, gang members will face a 10-year mandatory minimum penalty.
The mandatory minimums contained in this legislation are carefully
tailored to deter and disrupt violent gang activity as swiftly as
possible. These mandatory minimum penalties reflect Congress's duty to
ensure that violent gang members are consistently and fairly
incarcerated. Further, prosecutors and law enforcement will tell you
that in the absence of mandatory guidelines, such penalties are the
only way to secure the cooperation of lower-level gang members who have
critical information about the tightly-knit gang structure and gang
crimes to testify and cooperate against higher-level gang members who
typically insulate themselves from the day-to-day criminal activity.
Gang members who wish to avoid the mandatory minimum penalty can do so
by freely and willingly deciding to cooperate against other gang
members.
Madam Chairman, I wish to take a minute to underscore the support for
this measure from law enforcement, and by that, I mean the brave men
and women who are on the streets every day putting their lives on the
line to fight the gang epidemic in our country. Since this measure was
introduced, we have received strong letters of support from
organizations representing State and local law enforcement agencies
across our country, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the
National Sheriffs Association, the National Association of Police
Officers, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, the National
Troopers Coalition, the Major County Chief Association, the Law
Enforcement Alliance of America, the Association For Los Angeles Deputy
Sheriffs, the District Attorney for New Orleans, the California Gang
Investigators Association and the International Union of Police
Associations.
When law enforcement speaks with such a clear and unanimous voice, we
have a duty to listen, to act now and to give their members the tools
and resources they need to fight and win this battle on behalf of
America's law-abiding citizens.
I want to thank my two colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Forbes) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for their strong and
committed leadership on this issue. They have dedicated both time and
effort to H.R. 1279 and should be commended for their focus on
combating this disturbing national trend.
I urge my colleagues to support this vital public safety legislation.
Tough, determinate sentencing policies have worked to reduce crime in
the last 20 years, and now, we are facing a new challenge. Gang
violence is a growing national scourge that requires a tough and
measured response. Stiff penalties and additional resources to law
enforcement will send a clear and unmistakable message to the violent
criminal gang members that their conduct will no longer be tolerated.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, it is unfortunate that we are again debating how to
reduce juvenile crime and violence. Rather than following through on
the proven crime and violence prevention techniques that work, we are
back to tough-talking sound byte policies that have been proven to not
only fail to reduce crime but actually increase crime, waste taxpayers'
money and discriminate against minorities. Seven years ago, it was the
Violent Youth Predator Act. Now it is the ``Gang Busters'' bill, with
the same array of poll-tested sound bytes: trying more juveniles as
adults and mandatory minimum sentences. The bill includes mandatory
life or death penalties, even for unintentional acts.
This bill is in no way like the bill we developed a few years ago on
a bipartisan basis to address youth crime and violence following the
dark days following the Columbine school shootings. That bill was
cosponsored by all of the members of the Subcommittee on Crime and was
based on combined wisdom and expertise of law enforcement, juvenile
court judges, administrators, researchers, criminologists and juvenile
justice advocates along with the entire political spectrum.
All of the Hastert-Gephardt Task Force members called witnesses to
let us know what we should do to reduce crime and violence amongst
juveniles. Not a single one of those witnesses said we needed to add
more Federal mandatory minimum sentences. Not one mentioned the death
penalty. Not one said anything about trying more juveniles as adults.
Not one. The fully bipartisan bill we developed from recommendations of
those experts was full of collaborative efforts between Federal, State,
and local officials aimed at addressing the problems caused by young
people and addressing them early, focused on prevention and keeping
them out of trouble to begin with. And when they first get in trouble,
intervene early and provide sufficient sanctions and services to get
them back on the straight and narrow. Further, if they do come back,
hit them with graduated sanctions and services to the extent required
to address the problem, including keeping them away from or getting
them out of gang activities. At that time, as now, we can try juveniles
as adults as early as 13-years old and sentence them with harsh
sentences when they commit serious, violent offenses, both at the
Federal as well as the State level.
So make no mistake about it: The children affected by this bill will
be those children whose roles in gang crimes are minor or fringe,
because we are already trying youth who commit serious violent offenses
as adults and locking them up for long periods of time. It is the
lesser offenders, the children who get in fist fights, committing
misdemeanors, who will be subject to the 10-year, mandatory minimum
numbers in this bill. Those who commit murder or rape or chop off hands
with machetes or even conspire to do that are already subject to life
sentences. So the 10-year mandatory minimums will be the friends who
get in fights.
Madam Chairman, we already lock up more people than anywhere on
earth: 714 per 100,000, way above whatever is in second place, way
above the national average of 100 per 100,000. In fact, whereas there
is 1 out of 63 white youth 25- to 29-years old in jail today, we lock
up one out of every 8 African-American youth in jail today. This bill,
with all of its discriminatory policies, will only add to that
disparity. And for what? A long line of studies conducted by the
Department of Justice and crime researchers have consistently told us
that treating more juveniles as adults will increase crime and
violence.

{time} 1415

The Coalition of Juvenile Justice study, ``Childhood on Trial,''
coincidentally released the same day as this bill was introduced,
covers thousands of cases over a long period of time and confirmed that
adult treatment of more juveniles increases crime and violence and is
discriminatory in its application. That is primarily because if the
judge finds a person guilty in adult court, his only possibilities are
lock the child up with adults or let them walk on probation or parole.
If they get locked up with adults, they will obviously come out worse
than they went in. And so the studies show that if we increase the
number of juveniles tried as adults we will not only increase crime,
but we will increase violent crime.
Now, this bill not only includes provisions to try more juveniles as
adults. It also includes more mandatory minimums. We know from all of
the credible research, mandatory minimum sentences are the most costly
and least effective way to address crime. As compared to intelligent
approaches, like having the worst offenders get the most time and
lesser offenders get less time, or drug treatment for drug-addicted
offenders, mandatory minimum sentences have been shown to waste money
and discriminate against minorities. That is why the Federal Judicial
Conference has told us time and time again that mandatory minimum
sentences violate common sense.

[[Page H3136]]

We also know that the death penalty is not only flawed, but is
disproportionately applied to minorities and the poor. It also does not
reduce crime. Some 199 people have been freed from Death Row over the
last 10 years because they were innocent of the crimes for which they
received the death penalty. Now, until we fund the innocence protection
provisions we passed last year, we should not be passing new death
penalties.
But unfortunately, despite all of our agreement and progress, we have
failed in the most important aspect of our prior work, and that is to
provide adequate funding for the initiatives that we passed. The most
money we have ever been able to get appropriated for the juvenile
justice bills was $55 million a year, about one-tenth of what was
necessary. We are, in fact, cutting funding for these programs in our
budget, and also cutting money for local law enforcement. And this bill
provides nothing for prevention, nothing for early intervention, and
virtually nothing in the bill goes to local law enforcement. It all
goes to Federal prosecution and incarceration. Instead, almost $400
million in the bill will go to the Federal prosecutors and possibly
billions to locking up people under the long mandatory minimum
sentences.
Madam Chairman, we have a choice in crime policy. We can play
politics, or we can reduce crime. And we know what to do to reduce
crime. All the researchers have told us. In fact, a few weeks ago I met
with some students at Monument High School in South Boston,
Massachusetts, and I told them about this upcoming hearing we were
having on the gang bill, and I asked them what did they think needed to
be done to keep kids out of gangs. They said, kids join gangs for
reputation, protection, to feel wanted, to have friends, and to get
money. And what is needed to prevent them from joining gangs was ample
recreation for boys as well as girls, jobs and internships for training
and money, and assistance to allow their families to live in decent
homes.
Recently, I met with law enforcement officials in my district, and
they had similar advice. Neither group said anything about the need for
more mandatory minimums, trying more juveniles as adults, or new death
penalties. None of them asked us to waste money on these programs.
But we took their advice a few years ago and actually started the
process for doing what was necessary to reduce crime: prevention and
early intervention. But we did not finish the job of funding the
programs. We should fund juvenile justice prevention programs, early
intervention programs, and local law enforcement instead of passing
this bill.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the principal
author of this bill, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his leadership in this area and
for bringing this bill to the floor.
I rise today in support of this bipartisan bill, H.R. 1279, the Gang
Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005. And in the limited
time that I have, I just want to raise three points. The first point is
that throughout the debate today, you will hear two different worlds
described about gangs. One world they will describe in gangs will be
talking about antisocial behavior and fist fights. If you think that is
what we are concerned about with gangs, then we should not be here
today at all talking about this bill.
But the true world, when you talk about gangs, are that you are
having a rise in gangs in the United States where today, as we debate
this bill, there are between 750,000 and 850,000 gang members within
our borders. If it was a foreign army, it would be the sixth largest
army in the world. And these are the acts in the real gang world:
machete attacks, witness intimidation, extortion, murder of Federal
agents, rape, cutting off arms, fingers and individuals' heads.
So the second point is, why can we not just deal with these acts with
current State laws? Well, this chart shows just one member of one gang
and all of the activities that he had in traveling around the United
States. Today, these gangs have become national and international in
scope; and if we want to truly deal with gangs, there is only one way
to do it: you have got to bring down the gang networks and the gang
leaders. And this bill will do that.
Now, our friends who are opposed to this bill say let us just deal
with it crime by crime and individual by individual. And that works if
it is just an individual committing a crime, because once you get that
person and put them in jail, the crime stops. But when you are talking
about gangs, when you deal with just one crime from a lower-tier person
in that gang and you get that person and prosecute him, 20 different
acts were never caught. And when you get that one person from a gang
and it is an organized effort, 20 more spring up in their place.
We need a system to bring together teams of Federal, State, and local
law enforcement so that we can go after that network and bring them
down. And I would just ask you to look at a single situation where
local or State law enforcement has been able to reach up to these
national and international gangs and bring down the gang network.
The other thing that I want to say that you will see today, and we
heard it earlier, and I was absolutely shocked when I heard it, but the
opponents of this bill literally said on the floor earlier this morning
that giving arts and crafts to criminal gang members who committed
violent crimes would do more than the provisions of this bill, which is
to lock them up and to empower law enforcement to go after them.
And I want to just say, because you hear a lot of talk about people
who met with a group of students here, or maybe a group of people over
here, this is a list that the chairman read out earlier of virtually
every major law enforcement organization in the United States who
supports the provisions of this bill and realizes if we do not pass
this bill and bring down the gang networks, you might as well put a big
billboard out that says, ``Coming soon to a neighborhood near you,''
because that is what is going to happen with the rapid rise of these
gangs.
And I hope that this House will stand up today, will vote to give law
enforcement the tools they need, and that we will go after these
networks and bring them down.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just
to say, first of all, that my distinguished colleague from Virginia and
I will be working together later this week if they try to close any
military bases. But on this bill we, unfortunately, have to disagree.
First of all, Madam Chairman, murder, rape, kidnapping are already
illegal in every State. Interstate gang members can be caught by RICO
and organized crime, continuing criminal enterprise, FBI is already
working on that. But this bill contains a provision that fist fights
can subject young people to 10-year mandatory minimums.
The after-school programs that have been disparaged are the kinds of
things that will actually reduce gang involvement. You can disparage
them by calling it arts and crafts for gang members. But if you ask the
researchers what will actually make a difference, it is those after-
school programs to give the kids constructive things to do with their
time.
Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Schiff), a former prosecutor.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chairman, in February of this year, I introduced
bipartisan legislation with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Bono), the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005. The
Schiff-Bono bill represents a comprehensive effort to increase gang
prosecution and prevention efforts in order to crack down on criminal
street gangs. The bill is virtually identical to bipartisan legislation
that was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 108th
Congress and has since been reintroduced by Senators Feinstein, Hatch,
Kyl, Cornyn, and Grassley.
Madam Chairman, the bipartisan Schiff-Bono anti-gang bill had three
core objectives. First, it created a RICO-like statute specifically
tailored to street gangs in order to bring these networks down in the
same way we bring down organized crime through RICO. Second, our
legislation increased

[[Page H3137]]

a host of gang and violent crime penalties in order to deter and punish
illegal street gangs. And finally the Schiff-Bono bill included
important funding for prevention and intervention efforts in order to
attack the gang problem at its roots.
The sponsor of the bill before us today has spent much time on
highlighting the groups that have supported his bill. The Schiff-Bono
and Feinstein-Hatch bills are also endorsed by these groups and a host
of other law enforcement organizations. With all due respect to my
colleague from Virginia on the opposite side of the aisle, the most
significant difference between the bill I introduced prior to the bill
that is now before us is that all of the prevention funding in the
Senate bill and in my own bipartisan bill has been stripped out of the
anti-gang measure, and all we are left with is the deterrence.
Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, the committee leadership rejected the
opportunity to address this national problem in a bipartisan fashion.
Instead, the majority introduced the bill before us today after our
bill was introduced that essentially increases the same penalties that
our bill increases, but instead via mandatory minimums. The bill also
remarkably cuts out the bipartisan provisions devoted to expanding and
enhancing community-based and law enforcement prevention and
intervention programs targeting criminal street gangs, gang members,
and at-risk youth.
These prevention and intervention provisions are largely law
enforcement in nature. And, Madam Chairman, I want to point out these
provisions that have been stripped out of my bill that are in the
present form in this bill have the support of law enforcement. Law
enforcement does not support removing those from the legislation. They
are also part of the bipartisan bill in the Senate sponsored, as I
mentioned, by Senators Hatch, Feinstein, Cornyn, Grassley, and Kyl.
Members from both sides of the aisle recognize that a complete approach
to addressing the problem of criminal street gangs must include
prevention and intervention measures that attack the problem at its
roots.
Yes, we need deterrence as my bill provided. But we need prevention
as well. And, unfortunately, I think it is quite clear that this body
is no longer in the business of legislating, but rather of leveraging.
The legislation before us today is merely an attempt to leverage the
Senate. It will not come back in this form, and I intend to oppose it
today in the hopes that we will get a better bill coming back from the
Senate, as I am confident we will.
Madam Chairman, when I took office in the California State Senate, I
introduced a host of anti-crime measures as, indeed, I have done here.
At the same time, I realized then, as I realize now, that we also
have to take steps to intervene immediately and address juvenile crime
at its roots and try to prevent young people from getting into trouble.
And this, I think, is the fundamental issue before us. We can pay now,
or we can pay later. A small amount to preventive funding that we
invest now saves us a lot on the back end.
Madam Chairman, in my home State of California, when we incarcerate a
juvenile, it costs us $90,000 a year. Investing a small amount on the
front end in time-tested and true programs that keep kids out of
trouble makes infinite sense, both in terms of dollars saved and in
terms of lives saved.
And my hope, Madam Chairman, because my amendment to restore this
funding was not allowed by the Rules Committee, we were not allowed to
put it to my colleagues on the House floor for a vote, I hope, Madam
Chairman, it comes back from the Senate in a form that we can both
support on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam
Chairman, I deeply respect the arguments that have been advanced by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). He put forth his proposal in
committee, and it was defeated on a rollcall vote of 3 ayes to 22 noes.
So the Schiff proposal did not even carry a majority of the Democratic
members in the committee, let alone the Republican members.
Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf), who is also a sponsor of this bill.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Forbes) for doing this. And every Member of this House on
both sides should thank the gentleman. And I thank the chairman and the
staff of the Judiciary Committee for moving this legislation.
March issue of Newsweek: ``They are a violent force in 33 States and
counting. The most dangerous gang in America, MS-13.''
They killed 10 people in Northern Virginia. And I will tell the
gentleman from Los Angeles, they have killed a number of people out in
your area too.
There was a Washington Post editorial about this and a story where it
talks about a young parent. The eldest son, age 15, was sitting on the
steps of a nearby apartment with two friends when he was gunned down.
The friends were wounded, but survived. The son was killed almost
instantly. The mother remarked, we moved here to get away from the
gangs.
The brutality of these gangs. They took Brenda Paz, who was in the
Witness Protection Program down to the Shenandoah Valley and slashed
her throat to where her neck was cut all the way almost through, and
stabbed her 16 times.

{time} 1430

They prey on the poor. They prey on the poor in the inner cities.
They prey on the poor in Culmore. I have said, the people of Culmore
and the people of the inner city have just as much right to live in the
upscale neighborhoods where they may not be.
This is a good bill. And when we protect the most vulnerable in our
society, we protect everybody. I have talked to the community in
different areas of my district and in Culmore through this region. They
live in fear. And I say whether you have been in this country for 50
years and are wealthy or whether you have been here for 50 hours and
you live in an area where you are trying to work your way out, you
deserve the right to be protected. And the bill by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Forbes) protects the poor.
This bill protects those who are being preyed upon. And I hope and I
pray, on behalf of Brenda Paz who was stabbed 16 times and the families
that live in Culmore and the families that live out in L.A. and the
families that live in Houston, and the families that live throughout
the State of Virginia that are suffering with this, that this bill
passes overwhelmingly and goes on to the Senate, and they pass it so we
can finally get relief, not for the wealthy but for those who live in
Culmore and the inner city, who, up until this time, have been
forgotten by this institution.
Finally, with the Forbes bill, this will do more to help them.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
If the bill passes or does not pass, it will still be illegal to stab
someone 16 times. What we ought to be looking at are the kinds of
initiatives that will reduce the chances that that will happen again.
Giving a 10-year mandatory minimum for a second offense fist fight is
not going to reduce the chance that someone will be stabbed 16 times
when you are not funding any of the programs that are desperately
needed to actually reduce juvenile crime.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
I want to respond very briefly to the chairman's point. I have the
greatest respect for my chairman as well.
Yes, it is true that the Feinstein-Hatch amendment that I offered in
committee did not enjoy broad support on either side of the aisle. Some
on my side of the aisle thought the sentencing enhancements in this
bipartisan legislation were too strong and could not support it. But
the other amendment, Madam Chairman, that I offered that would simply
reinstate all the preventive funding, all of the proactive funding in
the bill, that was rejected by every Republican member of the
committee. Not a single GOP member of the Committee on the Judiciary
would support the prevention funding in committee. And we do not have
the ability to raise that issue on the House floor.

[[Page H3138]]

It is my earnest hope, however, that in conference with the Senate,
which I hope will insist that we not only have a back-end strategy for
dealing with the crime problem of gangs but that we have a front-end
strategy as well and that we will have the chance to address this again
in conference committee, and that funding will be restored.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1279,
the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005. I want to
thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) for his
hard work on this very critical issue. I also want to thank the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership in this area as well.
Gang violence is taking over too many of our communities. What was
once thought to be an urban problem has now moved into many suburban
and even rural areas, leaving virtually every community and every child
in them vulnerable. Sadly, too many children are turning their backs on
beneficial extra-curricular activities and turning to the world of guns
and drugs and violent activity in order to gain entry into or move up
or just maintain status in a gang.
In order to gain entry into these things, this legislation is
absolutely critical. And for those who have avoided being seduced by
gang life, they are too often held hostage in their homes for fear of
being the next victim or the unfortunate one who may witness a gang act
and who may later be called upon to testify, and they are often times
in fear of their life when that happens.
In my district, the first district of Ohio which includes the City of
Cincinnati, the 22 homicides that have occurred as of March put the
city on pace to exceed the record number, 75 homicides that occurred
back in 2003. Many of our city officials and law enforcement point
toward gang activity centered on drug trafficking as the source of this
increase.
We cannot allow gangs to control our communities. We must give law
enforcement the tools to fight back. H.R. 1279 would help to accomplish
this in two ways: It would establish new stronger gang and violent
criminal penalties as well as strengthen existing ones to deter the
acts of violence commonly associated with these gangs. Most
importantly, H.R. 1279 gives our communities the resources to attack
the gang problem from all levels.
H.R. 1279 ensures that local State and national law enforcement work
together to stop gangs and to make our communities finally safe as they
ought to be. Our communities cannot fight gangs alone.
I would strongly urge my colleagues to support this important piece
of legislation to ensure that we have a coordinated effort in all
levels of government. I want to again thank the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Forbes) for his leadership in this area.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me time.
I rise reluctantly because rarely do I oppose a majority bill. In
this case, however, as I expressed in the Committee on the Judiciary, I
think there are three problems with the bill: First, it federalizes
State crimes. Second, it spends too much money. Third, it has mandatory
minimums.
I voted for mandatory minimums a number of times in my previous time
in Congress, and then I had 6 years out, six years out to talk with
people in the community, to talk with judges. And during that time, I
became very uncomfortable with our approach about mandatory minimums.
We have sentencing guidelines. The idea of those guidelines is to
have a coherent system of sentencing, some method of figuring out how
heinous one crime is compared to another. And then Congress comes along
and slaps on mandatory minimums on top of that framework, doing
violence to the framework of a sentencing guideline system. I think it
is a mistake.
Like I say, I voted for them in the past. I will not do it again. I
am inclined to say, let us have a sentencing guideline system that
works. Let us not, because of some political considerations, rise and
go after say crack cocaine as opposed to powdered cocaine and end up
with perverse results, which is somebody rotting in jail because they
smoked the wrong kind of cocaine. It is an unjust result. It is
something we should resolve in this body to avoid.
I think we have an opportunity to improve this bill. I will be
supporting some of the amendments the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) will be offering. It is another opportunity to try to improve
it.
I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE. Madam Chairman, I spent 22 years as a judge in Texas trying
criminal cases, felonies; 22,000 felony cases came through my court.
They dealt with everything from major theft to capital murder cases.
And a lot of those cases were gang cases. And the people in this
country who believe and think that gangs are not a problem are sorely
mistaken.
It was the action operative of the gangs in the Houston area to use
juveniles to commit serious crimes, violent crimes, because those very
juveniles and these gang leaders knew that juveniles would be treated
differently, as they were. These gangs would almost laugh at the
criminal justice system because the juveniles would not face the same
type of punishment as adults.
This portion of the bill that treats juveniles in some cases the same
as adults is a good idea, because, in our country, victims continue to
be discriminated against based on the age of offenders. Those days need
to end, especially with gang members.
This is an important issue.
I, too, like the previous speakers are concerned about whether this
is a States' rights issue or not. But gangs cross State lines. No
longer are they just a local terrorist community. And they are
terrorists, Madam Chairman. We, at this time, are engaged in a war
against international terrorists. We need to be concerned about the
street terrorists who roam our neighborhoods and commit violent crimes
in the name of some type of gang.
A specific powerful enemy to the United States is the MS-13 gang. We
need to be concerned about them because they are a terrorist group.
They are gang members. So the first duty of government is to protect
its citizens. We do that abroad. We need to do it against those street
terrorists that live among us.
I support this bill.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise to acknowledge, Madam Chairman, that gang violence poses a
problem in America. Coming from the community that I come from in
Houston, we have had some tough times with gang activities, and we have
been successful in eliminating or steering young people away from that
gang violence.
Just recently, of course, as the ranking member on the Subcommittee
on Immigration, we have had hearings on the MS-13 gangs. And I reached
out to my community in Houston to determine the influx of those gangs.
Those gangs are particularly focused in South and Central America. Many
of the individuals are undocumented aliens that become engaged in that
activity in California and places along the border.
So I believe that we should have a comprehensive approach and look at
this particular crisis, but at the same time, when I say comprehensive,
I would suggest balanced.
The concern I have of H.R. 1279 is that the bill and the legislative
approach is not balanced. From the early time of my career, I recall
that we have on the Committee on the Judiciary reached out, those of us
who were Democrats to reach out on this question of intervention. In
fact, the first term that I was here, we did a national tour, if you
will, national meetings of the Subcommittee on Crime.
My colleague who is now the ranking member joined me on that, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott),

[[Page H3139]]

where we traveled across the Nation to talk about the importance of
intervention on gang and juvenile crime activities. In fact, out of
that came a legislative initiative, the aspect that I worked on was
mental health intervention, mental health treatment, which we found to
be very effective.
In fact, during that time, my late colleague, a very committed former
Senator Paul Wellstone, who we tragically lost in an airplane crash,
came to my district and visited the juvenile detention centers. We saw
the sadness and the plight of those young men. Some, yes, had
perpetrated heinous acts, and they were detained, or they were
incarcerated. But we also saw the hopeless and those who did not have a
good family situation, those who had no intervention, those who were
not given the kind of educational structure that they needed.
This legislation unfortunately does not meet that balance-
comprehensive test. For example, something that I find particularly
troubling is the provision that the Attorney General can charge a
juvenile 16-years old or older as an adult for certain violent crimes
and prohibits judicial review of the Attorney General's decision.
This is not to suggest that that decision might not be confirmed or
affirmed, but here we are talking about a 16-year old, and we do not
know the circumstances of that violent act, the previous history of
this 16-year old, and the Attorney General does not get subjected to
the checks and balances of that the Constitution allows us to have,
which is judicial review of that kind of difficult decision.
I cannot imagine, Madam Chairman, that we would have a bill that
would not have those kind of protections.
I had an amendment that was not made in order in particular that
dealt specifically with the question of illegal transfer of a firearm
to any individual the Federal Government had designated as a suspected
or known gang member or a terrorist. It established a system whereby
any individual inadvertently included on the gang terror watch list may
have his or her name removed. So there is a question of mistaken
identity. There is a question of a big sweep and adding people's names
to the list.
We saw that with the Pakistani registration lists after 9/11.
Sweeping up large numbers of people from the Pakistani community, and
as I understand, not one single person on that list was found to be a
terrorist. And it was stopped when the Members of Congress raised their
voices.
The mandatory sentencing, and I am delighted of the position of the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis), I think that this Congress
should address that separately. And I have, in fact, written bills that
have enhanced sentencing on particular notorious or vicious acts.

{time} 1445

I think that is appropriate; but a blanket, mandatory sentencing that
does not deal with the fact that you are looking at juveniles, some
U.S. citizens, some not, really begs the question.
So if we are going to look at terrorism, we are going to look at gang
activity, we have to realize that still children are involved; and we
must have this comprehensive approach, because we are already known as
the world power with the largest number of Americans and others
incarcerated. Yes, incarcerate those who have been tried and convicted
fairly for heinous acts and other acts; but we have a record of
incarcerating people for long, long years way beyond the time that it
does anything other than pack the prisons and deny families of their
loved ones and the ability of young people to be educated and to have
an alternative life.
This bill leaves a lot to be desired, and I hope we can go back to
the drawing boards and actually fix it and have a comprehensive
approach to fighting gang violence and, of course, gang involvement.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the legislation before
the House today, H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community
Protection Act of 2005. As Founder and Chair of the Congressional
Children's Caucus, I undoubtedly recognize the need for us to legislate
to create protections from the danger and violence produced by gangs.
However, before we haphazardly amend the law to add excessive and
egregious mandatory minimums and other penalties that apply to groups
of people or young groups of people, we must clearly define the acts
that we seek to penalize. That is the essence of crafting law that is
``narrowly tailored'' and that does not suffer from overbreadth.
This bill is unnecessary because federal prosecutors have statutes
such as the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute gang
crime. Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence strongly suggests that this
bill would exceed Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause.
H.R. 1279 unreasonably an unjustifiably removes judicial review of a
prosecutor's decision to try a youth as an adult. Current law requires
an in-depth review of multiple considerations by a federal judge of
whether such a transfer is in the interest of justice. This policy is
unwise and will increase federal prosecution of youth for minor
offenses. Presently, in both federal and state courts, juveniles who
commit the most serious violent crimes are almost certain to be
transferred to adult court through use of a judicial waiver. In
effecting transfer to adult court, judicial waivers, as opposed to
legislative or prosecutorial waivers, are the most common type of
waiver device used. That is, the juvenile court judge decides whether
or not to waive jurisdiction to adult court. However, Section 115 of
H.R. 1279 takes the waiver decision out of the judge's discretion.
As the Judicial Conference of the United States aptly suggests,
Section 115 ``could result in the federal prosecution of juveniles for
myriad offenses.'' Equally alarming, the legislation removes the
current prerequisite that the transferred child have a prior conviction
for an offense that would be a serious violent felony if committed by
an adult. Thus, a prosecutor could unilaterally decide to transfer a
youthful offender with no prior criminal record who commits a simple
drug trafficking offense, with no judicial review of whether such
transfer serves the interests of justice. Moreover, a move toward
federal prosecution causes us great concern because as the Judicial
Conference acknowledges, ``juvenile offenders require different and
perhaps more extensive correctional and rehabilitative programs than
adults and there is not a single, federal correctional facility to meet
these needs.''
H.R. 1279 simply takes the wrong approach. Instead of focusing on
correctional and rehabilitative programs, it attempts to throw more
youth in crowded adult prisons where these programs are lacking. H.R.
1279 reflects the politics of crime where you come up with a good
slogan such as ``the gang busters'' bill and codify it. Until H.R.
1279, the Judiciary Committee had made great progress toward putting
aside the politics of crime in favor of sound policy in the area of
juvenile justice. I believe in fighting terrorism but not without a
thoughtful approach.

amendments that were not made in order

I would like to thank the Gentlemen from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern
for his austere words in support of the amendments that I offered at
the Committee on Rules yesterday but were not made in order. These
amendments were very substantive, as were those of my colleagues that
were also denied debate.
My first amendment would have struck Section 10 of the bill. As
written in the bill, a prosecutor could bring a capital case in a
district that had only the most tangential connection with the crime.
This amendment clarifies that the defendant must have committed
criminal activity related to the capital case in the jurisdiction where
the prosecutor seeks to bring the charge. For example, if a murder
occurred in Massachusetts with a gun stolen from Mississippi, the
homicide case could be prosecuted in Mississippi. This allows
prosecutors to forum shop and pick the location where they think they
are most likely to be able to obtain a death sentence.
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.
My second amendment would have struck Section 115 of the bill which
deals with the transfer of juveniles to adult courts. More
specifically, my amendment will prevent 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

[[Page H3140]]

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 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.
My third amendment would have closed a 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.
Admittedly, section 114 of the underlying bill offers increased
criminal penalties for the use of a firearm in a gang-related crime.
However, ``after the fact'' criminal penalties are often of little use
to victims and their loved ones. And, if we really want to curb this
growing problem, we have to do something to prevent these individuals
from gaining access to these dangerous weapons in the first place.
Madam Chairman, again, I oppose this legislation and urge my
colleagues to join me.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I have been here for a number of years; and when you
are against a bill, you can come up with a million and one reasons why
the bill should not pass. We just heard some of that; but if we do not
do anything, the killings are going to continue.
We can have a legitimate disagreement on mandatory minimum sentences,
but I think there are some crimes that are so severe and eat away so
much at the roots of our society and the fabric of our society that
those who are convicted of those crimes ought to be locked up and
locked up for sure, because only with a certain jail term are we going
to be able to punish those who have killed people in the most brutal
manner and deter those who might be thinking of doing it to others in
our society.
I have here an April 26 story from the Associated Press, dateline,
Houston: ``Violent gang linked to nine Houston area killings.'' I am
not going to read the whole story on the floor, but I am going to read
one paragraph of this story to show that those who wish to delay this
bill because it has a mandatory minimum or because it does not do
enough social work are wrong:
``Harris County Sheriff's investigators arrested five members of Mara
Salvatrucha,'' which is MS-13, ``in connection with the shooting death
of 18-month-old Alden Naquin, who was trapped in his car seat April 12
when a man opened fire on a car driven by his father, Ernest Naquin.''
I think if someone is convicted of murdering an 18-month-old in that
circumstance they ought to be locked away for sure and for a long time.
I am sorry people disagree with that, but I hope that this bill passes.
Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin for the time.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1279, and I commend the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his leadership in
bringing this bill to the floor for a vote today.
Madam Chairman, gang violence is on the rise across the United
States. Areas once thought safe harbors from crime are now under the
threat of expanding gang violence.
My district is not home to a center city area. It is considered a
suburban area. Bucks County is a quiet pastoral suburb of the city of
Philadelphia, an area bordered by farms to the north, business centers
to the south, residential areas to the west, and the Delaware River to
the east. However, the majority of crime in my district takes place in
a very small, concentrated area.
But the people of Bristol, Bucks County, are taking the lead in
cleaning up their streets. The hard work of Don Billingsley and other
neighbor leaders have made Bristol a shining example of the Department
of Justice's Weed and Seed initiative to take back neighborhoods from
crime. However, Bristol is under threat from gangs migrating from
cities just across the river in New Jersey.
Madam Chairman, three things are needed to make sure gangs do not
infiltrate areas like Bristol: people, money, and strong anti-crime
laws. Well, in Bristol, we have the money and we have financial
resources through the Weed and Seed program, but what we need are
strong laws. H.R. 1279 is the bill that would dissuade gangs from
taking up shop in my district.
Gang violence is an issue that must be dealt with immediately. The
House Committee on the Judiciary reports that over 631 gang-related
homicides occurred in 2001, perpetrated by an estimated 750,000 active
gang members. Gangs are directly linked to narcotics trade, human
trafficking, identification document fraud, violent maiming, assault
and murder, and the use of firearms to commit deadly shootings; but the
problem does not stop there.
Organized crime syndicates like the ultra-violent MS-13 have
reportedly agreed to smuggle terrorists over our southern borders. This
is now a homeland security issue.
H.R. 1279 will apply a RICO-type approach to prosecuting modern
street gangs. At the heart of this bill are provisions that allow
prosecutors to go after the gangs as an enterprise. Rather than trying
to shoehorn such cases into the existing RICO statute, the new gang
crime statute is narrowly tailored to address the specific problem of
gangs. Gang investigations and prosecutions take time and resources,
and those resources will be provided by this bill.
Organized crime, Madam Chairman, has been prosecuted in the same way
with long and complex trials designed to take out a number of
defendants in one single prosecution, and they were successful in
ending their spread. Madam Chairman, let us give our police and
prosecutors the freedom to end the spread of gang violence.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Whether this bill passes or not, murder, rape, robbery will be
illegal. People will be prosecuted. They will get time in jail. In
fact, as I indicated before, for 15- to 19-year-old African Americans
in this country, one out of eight are already in jail today. This bill,
which will try more juveniles as adults, will not only increase the
number in jail but will also increase the crime rate.
Mandatory minimums have been shown to be discriminatory and waste the
taxpayers' money. The death penalty is discriminatory and does not do
anything about crime. This bill will give 10 years mandatory minimums
to second-offense fist fights, and that is not the kind of sentence
that is going to do anything about these violent kinds of crimes that
my colleagues are talking about. Ten years, mandatory minimum, second
offense, fist fight.
Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, let me add to the
distinguished gentleman's commentary.
First of all, in the passage of the PATRIOT Act, if we are fearful of
these gangs smuggling individuals over who do terrorist acts, the
PATRIOT Act enhances sentencing on those engaging in terrorist acts.
That tragic incident in Texas, for example, in Houston, the
information suggests that the dad was involved in gang activity that
caused the, if you will, rising of the level of violence; but the good
news is that the sheriff's department arrested those violent criminals.
This bill misses the point by providing a comprehensive approach to

[[Page H3141]]

have intervention to be able to dissuade some of the young people of
America away from the affinity and kinship of gangs. That is why the
bill is wrong, and this is why it does not have a full comprehensive
approach.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Madam Chairman, I am sure that a social worker would have been able
to convince the person who murdered the 18-month-old not to do it. If
my colleagues believe that, vote ``no.'' If not, vote ``yes.''
Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I thank the esteemed chairman for
yielding time to me, and Madam Chairman, I ask for this opportunity to
say a few words in support of the bill that is before us and in
compliments to the work done by the gentleman from Virginia who has
announced to us that there is a number, the best estimate at 750,000 to
850,000, gang members in the United States.
When we think about the magnitude of that size number, 750,000 to
850,000, 75 to 100 percent, and a lot believe the number is very close
to 100 percent, are illegal immigrants who have established a gang
culture in the ethnic enclave that is a necessary result of illegal
immigration. This ethnic enclave has created and fostered some of the
worst gains we have ever seen in this country, people that cut off
hands and arms and heads, people that have a network across this Nation
that from a prison in California can order an execution on the streets
of Virginia or from a prison in Virginia, order an execution in a
prison in L.A. or on the streets of L.A.
That is what this culture has fostered; and that amount, that
850,000, that is roughly out of the 10 million illegal immigrants, that
is about 8\1/2\ percent of the illegal population ends up in a gang.
One in 12 people that come across the border illegally and stay here
end up in a gang. By these numbers, it is an astonishing thing; and if
we have 1.1 million that come across the southern border, these are the
ones that stay here, calculate the numbers that turn out into gangs,
the price to this society in hands and arms and heads.
Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for this privilege to speak
before this House.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in
opposition to H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection
Act, because this bill fails to adequately deter youths from joining
gangs and does not do enough to protect our communities.
This bill fails to create a much-needed, comprehensive approach to
fighting our national gang epidemic. Instead of offering funding for
proven intervention and prevention programs that effectively keep
youths from joining gangs in the first place, this punitive bill simply
imposes harsh and sweeping mandatory minimum sentences.
Locking up 16-year-olds for 10 years will not make gang crimes
disappear. As any law enforcement officer will tell my colleagues,
suppression is merely one of the avenues by which we can prevent gang
violence. In fact, as many of my Democratic colleagues have repeatedly
stressed, imposing mandatory minimums on youths often results in a
greater likelihood of repeat, and more violent, offenses.
Prevention and intervention programs, on the other hand, have a
proven track record of keeping kids out of gangs; but at the Committee
on the Judiciary markup of this bill and in the Committee on Rules last
night, amendments to include intervention and prevention programs in
this bill were defeated along party-line votes.
I joined my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff),
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson), in submitting an amendment to expand the
Project Safe Neighborhoods program, to authorize the Attorney General
to make the FBI increase Safe Streets Initiative efforts, to
reauthorize the Gang Resistance Education and Training Projects program
and, more importantly, to double-funding for high-intensity interstate
gang activity areas and require half of those funds to go to community-
based anti-gang programs.
I know from personal knowledge that our amendment would have reduced
gang activity nationwide because I have seen community-based programs
work in my very own district.
The Gang Resistance in Paramount, or GRIP, program has been educating
kids about the dangers of gang participation for years. I spent some
time inside a fourth grade class inside of Paramount last year to see
the GRIP program in action. I saw firsthand how the program caught the
attention of the students, and it was amazing how the program engaged
the students in learning and how quickly they saw the dangers in gangs.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1279 and instead work towards a
comprehensive approach.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I rise this afternoon to support H.R.
1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act.
I was pleased to work with the Committee on the Judiciary, and
especially the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), my good friend, to
support the legislation on the floor today.
According to the Justice Department, there are currently over 25,000
gangs and over 750,000 gang members who are active across the United
States. Gang activity has been directly linked to the proliferation of
illegal drugs, human trafficking, and many other violent crimes.
The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act will authorize funds
for joint Federal, State, and local gang investigation prosecution;
create a statute to prosecute criminal gang enterprises similar to the
existing RICO statute used to prosecute Federal racketeering; create
mandatory minimum sentencing for gang and violent crimes; and fund gang
investigation technology to allow law enforcement to act more
efficiently.
Madam Chairman, many headlines of late have reflected on growing gang
problems in heavily populated areas. Unfortunately, gang violence is
also on the rise in rural areas, including my congressional district.
The disturbing news that it is spreading through the Shenandoah Valley
of Virginia is indeed disturbing. In fact, the FBI has recognized the
existence of at least six separate gangs in the valley, some of which
are responsible for at least two gang-related murders in the past 2
years.
Madam Chairman, acknowledging the reality that gangs are no longer
limited solely to urban areas, I am pleased to join my colleagues to
support this gangbusters legislation. This legislation will allow us to
meet the increase in gang activity with resources sufficient to combat
this scourge in our communities, and I urge my colleagues to support
this important legislation.

{time} 1500

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of anybody who
would want to see gangs deterred more. I cannot think of anybody who
would want to see crime deterred more. I cannot think of many people
who have had more experience living in inner-city communities, where
there is a tremendous amount of poverty, deprivation and pestilence.
I want to see people who commit robbery, murder, rape, assaults,
participate in mob action, all of them dealt with accordingly. And
although I do not believe in capital punishment, I do believe that they
have to be punished. I do not believe that mandatory minimums, that
trying more children, more teenagers as adults, or changing venues and
deciding what discretionary action individuals would be tried under is
going to solve the problem. I think that we need to make sure that
fairness is a part of justice.
Mr. Chairman, this bill frightens me. It scares me. I would hope that
we would take it back, deal with it appropriately and bring a bill that
we can

[[Page H3142]]

agree on that punishes those who deserve to be punished but to
demonstrate that we understand sensitivity and not put children in jail
as adults.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. My colleagues, this is a measure that we should be able
to identify the problem, study the data, and work together to craft a
commonsense response to youth violence. But the measure before us has
fatal flaws which authorizes trying more juveniles as adults and
provides for more mandatory minimums and more death penalties. None of
these things will correct and reduce the youth violence problem, but
they will seriously harm our system of juvenile justice.
Now, the one thing that we should know before we go to a vote here is
the organizations that have joined myself and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking subcommittee member, and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has worked tirelessly on this
issue across the years with the Congressional Black Caucus. For
instance, the Judicial Conference of the United States opposes this
measure. The Sentencing Commission opposes this measure; the Alliance
for Children and Families, the Children's Defense Fund, the Youth Law
Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Correctional
Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of
Independent Businesses, the National Council of La Raza, the
Presbyterian Church, and the Volunteers of America.
And let me tell my colleagues why these groups oppose this
legislation. Because, first, they know that trying children as adults
and transferring them to adult jails not only does not work, but it
makes the situation more likely that they will commit crimes upon
release. There are studies that back this up; that they will commit
violent crimes upon release, and they will commit crimes sooner upon
release. The Miami Herald study concluded that, since adult prisons
are, in effect, often crime schools, sending a juvenile there increases
by 35 percent the odds that they will commit another offense within a
year of release.
Secondly, we know that mandatory minimums distort the sentencing
process because the Judicial Conference and the Sentencing Commission
have found that mandatory minimums ``destroy honesty in sentencing by
encouraging charge and fact plea bargains.'' Again, the legislation
before us ignores these facts and creates numerous new mandatory
minimums that will lead to far greater disparities and further
discrimination.
At a time when we have more than 2.1 million Americans in prisons or
jails, more than any Nation on the planet, and 10 percent of these
individuals are already serving life sentences, it is difficult for
reasonable legislators to see how more jail time for more youth can
accomplish anything constructive.
Finally, we know now that the death penalty system in this country is
incredibly prone to error. So I urge that the Members of this House
return this measure to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this bill seem to zero in on two
things. First of all, they are opposed to mandatory minimum sentences.
People may have a philosophical disagreement on mandatory minimum
sentences, but it seems to me that given the violence of gang activity,
the number of murders, the number of maimings, that a mandatory minimum
sentence is absolutely necessary to get these people off the streets if
the twelve persons on the jury believe that that defendant has
committed those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
The other thing we hear from the opponents is, they dust off the same
old tired arguments that we need more and more spending on prevention
programs, but no one has proven they work. Let us take a look at the
facts. Violent crime rates over the last 30 years have dropped
dramatically, by almost 50 percent. At the same time, tough new
determinant sentencing schemes have been enacted by Congress, including
mandatory minimums, truth-in-sentencing programs and other sentencing
schemes where criminals go to jail for a specified period of time after
their conviction. Prison populations have grown, and crimes have gone
down. The logic is clear. We have to incarcerate and incapacitate the
violent criminals in our society. We have done so and must continue to
do so. This bill does that.
When we talk about spending more on prevention, consider these facts:
Conservative estimates show that the Department of Justice has already
spent over $2 billion, that is with a ``B,'' of the taxpayers' dollars
between fiscal years 2001 through 2004 on juvenile and gang prevention
programs. From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2005, Congress has
appropriated $3.3 billion of the taxpayers' dollars for juvenile
justice programs within the Department of Justice.
Have they worked? This is yet to be proven, because juvenile gang
violence is on the rise. The percentage of homicides committed by gangs
has risen, and the number of juveniles committing gang murders has also
risen.
So let me say that, if $3.3 billion over the last 6 years in
intervention and prevention programs has not turned around this type of
crime when other crime has gone down, maybe the time to throw the book
at those who are engaged in juvenile gang violence is at hand. That is
why this bill ought to pass. I urge the membership to vote aye.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this H.R. 1279, the Gang
Deterrence and Community Prosecution Act of 2005. I strongly believe in
cooperation between Federal and State law enforcement to deter gang
activities. However, this bill takes the wrong approach by imposing
mandatory sentences, trying juveniles as adults and expanding the death
sentence to new offenses.
I, myself, can appreciate the destruction that gang violence can
impose on a community. In Chicago alone, there are estimated to be
70,000 to 100,000 gang members--compared with about 13,000 Chicago
police officers. Several ``super gangs'' dominate: the Gangster
Disciples, the Black Disciples, the Vice Lords, the Black P Stones, the
Mickey Cobras, the Latin Kings, the Spanish Cobras, the Maniac Latin
Disciples, and the Satan Disciples. Each of these gangs controlled
large amounts of territory and have wreaked havoc on the Chicago
community. Nevertheless, prevention and intervention is the key in
deterring juvenile crime and gang activities, not discriminatory
mandatory sentencing or unfettered prosecutorial discretion.
Study after study have shown that trying juveniles as adults does not
reduce crime but increases crime, including violent crime. In addition,
a better approach, as opposed to this ill-advised approach, would be to
focus our energy on more programs for at risk youth such as Head Start,
Job Corps and family focused intervention programs. Again, I rise
against H.R. 1279, and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
do the same.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I stand today in strong opposition to
H.R. 1279, the so-called gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act.
Despite its deceptive title, its primary purpose is to punish more
young people as adults. This bill would expand the use of the death
penalty, treat juveniles as adults and impose mandatory minimum
sentences. The research conclusively shows that prosecuting young
people as adults does not reduce youth crime. If Congress is serious
about reducing youth violence, it should fund evidence-based programs
that have proven effective.
Federal prosecutors are already armed with the Continuing Criminal
Enterprise, CCE, and Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organization Act,
RICO, statutes to combat gang crimes. This bill would unnecessarily
federalize a host of crimes currently and competently handled by the
states; penalize even non-violent crimes and misdemeanors as crimes of
violence, including garden variety State offenses like resisting
arrest; expand without reason the definition of criminal street gang;
unwisely leave to the sole discretion of the government the
unreviewable decision to try juveniles as adults; impose unduly harsh
and discriminatory mandatory minimum sentences; and expand the use of
the federal death penalty to new offenses.
I agree that gang violence and youth crimes are serious concerns
today. Unfortunately, this bill does nothing in the way of jobs or
education for at-risk youth. Instead, this bill would lock up young
people in adult prisons and take away judges' discretion to review on a
case-by-case basis crimes committed by youth. Research shows that young
people who are

[[Page H3143]]

prosecuted as adults are more likely to commit a greater number of
crimes upon release than youth who go through the juvenile justice
system. Locking young people up in adult prisons will actually
compromise public safety.
We know what works to prevent violent crime. Research demonstrates
the effectiveness of focused family interventions such as family
therapy and multidimensional treatment foster care. Certain school-
based interventions such as the Bullying Prevention Program and the
Project Towards No Drug Abuse, and careful monitoring programs such as
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America have also proven effective. Instead
of funding these programs whose empirical effectiveness can be
demonstrated, supporters of this bill insist upon approaches that lack
any evidence of actually deterring and reducing violent youth crime.
Furthermore, state juvenile justice systems are more appropriate and
effective means for addressing youth offenses. Studies have shown that
comprehensive, locally tailored strategies are the most effective in
preventing gang and youth violence. Existing state legislation is more
than adequate to comprehensively address youth violence--increased
federalization of juvenile crime is not the answer.
The Judicial Conference of the United States, child advocacy groups,
criminal justice groups, industry and business-oriented groups,
religious, human rights and civil rights organizations all oppose this
bill. It is the responsibility of Congress to the young people of this
nation and to all citizens to ensure public safety. I urge my
colleagues to reject H.R. 1279 because it would only exacerbate youth
violence in the United States.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection
Act, (H.R. 1279), is the latest example of Congress disregarding its
constitutional limitations in the name of ``getting tough on crime.''
Gang crime is certainly a serious issue in many parts of the country.
However, unless criminal gangs are engaging in counterfeiting, treason,
or piracy, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the criminal
activities of gangs. In fact, by creating new federal crimes related to
gang activities, but unrelated to one of the federal crimes enumerated
in the Constitution, the new federal crimes and enhanced penalties in
this bill usurp state and local authority.
H.R. 1279 broadly defines ``criminal street gangs'' and ``gang
activity.'' This is a major expansion of Federal criminal jurisdiction.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed
Meese, two men who no one has ever accused of being ``soft on crime,''
have both warned that, although creating more Federal crimes may make
politicians feel good, it is neither constitutionally sound nor
prudent. Rehnquist has stated that, ``[t]he trend to federalize crimes
that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to
change entirely the nature of our federal system.'' Meese stated that
Congress's tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of
offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous
implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the
principle that states are something more than mere administrative
districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
Those who want the American criminal justice system to actually
deliver justice should oppose H.R. I279 because it imposes ``mandatory
minimum'' sentences for certain gang-related crimes. Mandatory minimum
sentences impose a ``one-size-fits-all'' formula in place of the
discretion of a judge, or jury, to weigh all the circumstances
surrounding an individual's crime and decide on an appropriate
punishment. Taking away judicial discretion over sentencing may
represent a legislative usurpation of areas properly left to the
judiciary. I have long been critical of judicial usurpation of
legislative functions, and have introduced legislation using Congress's
constitutional powers to rein in the judiciary. However, I recognize
that Congress must make sure it does not overstep its constitutional
authority by imposing legislative solutions on matters best resolved by
the judicial branch.
Mandatory minimums almost guarantee unjust sentences. Reverend
Nicholas DiMarzio, Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Reverend Kerry
Snyder, President of Catholic Charities USA, summed it up well in a
letter to Congress opposing this bill: ``. . . rigid sentencing
formulations could prevent judges from properly assessing an
individual's culpability during the crime of other factors that have
bearing on recidivism, thus sometimes resulting in harsh and
inappropriate sentences.''

I am also concerned that removing authority over the prevention and
punishment of gang crimes from state and local jurisdictions will
prevent states and localities from coming up with innovative ways to
prevent gang crimes. Gangs flourish for a multitude of reasons, and no
federal ``one-size-fits-all'' program can address all the causes of
gang crimes. States and localities should be left free to create the
gang prevention and punishment programs that best meet their unique
needs.
Supporters of this bill make a good point that federal money is being
wasted on ineffective ``prevention'' programs like the infamous
``midnight basketball'' program. However, H.R. 1279 in no way reduces
funding for ineffective prevention programs. Instead, it spends more
taxpayer money on unconstitutional crime programs. The sponsors of this
bill could have attempted to stop wasting taxpayer funds on programs
such as midnight basketball by defunding such prevention programs and
using the funds to pay for the new programs created by H.R. 1279.
Finally, I must oppose this bill because it expands the Federal death
penalty. While I recognize that nothing in the Constitution forbids
Federal, State, or local governments from imposing a death penalty, I
have come to the conclusion that a consistent pro-life position
requires opposition to any legislation imposing a Federal death penalty
for unconstitutional Federal crimes. Mr. Speaker, I do not advocate
Federal action to stop individual States from imposing a death penalty,
I simply oppose compounding the damage done by creating new Federal
crimes by making those crimes subject to a Federal death penalty.
H.R. 1279 exceeds Congress's constitutional authority by creating new
Federal crimes, thus further burdening the already overwhelmed Federal
judiciary system and taking another step toward upending our
constitutional system by turning the States into administrative
districts of the Federal Government. This bill also creates unwise
mandatory minimum sentences, usurping the sentencing decisions of
judges and juries. Finally, H.R. 1279 raises serious moral issues by
expanding the use of the Federal death penalty. Therefore, I must
oppose H.R. 1279 and urge my colleagues to do same.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support
for H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of
2005.
I have spoken with sheriffs and police chiefs back in my district and
they tell me: we need to be ready; we need to learn how to confront
these gangs. This legislation will do just that, it will provide local,
State, and Federal law enforcement and legal authorities with
personnel, equipment, and training needed to combat violent criminal
gangs.
In Virginia, no urban area has gone unscarred by criminal gangs.
Across Virginia, officials estimate that as many as 80 gangs totaling
30,000 members or more roam our city streets.
The Commonwealth's law enforcement and prosecutors will now have
greater resources to combat violent criminal gang activity. We must act
now, if we are to protect Virginia's families and communities.
I urge passage of this legislation.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1279, which will
increase the prosecution of gangs and help prevent gang-related crimes.
Gang violence is a serious problem, and we need to address it with
determination and creativity.
A recent rash of gang-related violence has left four injured and one
person dead in the city of Norwalk this year. My own home town of
Bridgeport has faced a tough gang problem for years. It is absolutely
essential we have strong legislation on the books to send gang members
who commit violent acts into jail and off our streets.
I want to stress, however, the importance of prevention programs to
deter our vulnerable youth from turning to gangs to support. The
mentoring program in the Norwalk Public School system, which will
benefit from the recent Department of Education Federal grant we
secured, plays a strong role in keeping kids off the streets. The
bottom line is, while we need to make sure juvenile offenders
understand the consequences of their actions and are punished for them,
we need to make every effort to help youth who are at risk of becoming
juvenile offenders.
Mentoring programs designed to reduce children's juvenile delinquency
and involvement in gangs and provide positive relationships to help
guide them during their school years are an invaluable way to break the
cycle of gang membership before it begins. Incarceration will put
criminals away but it won't save more kids from falling through the
cracks and turning to a life of crime.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

[[Page H3144]]

H.R. 1279

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Gang Deterrence and
Community Protection Act of 2005''.

TITLE I--CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS AND ENHANCED PENALTIES TO DETER AND
PUNISH ILLEGAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY AND RELATED CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS

SEC. 101. REVISION AND EXTENSION OF PENALTIES RELATED TO
CRIMINAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY.

(a) In General.--Chapter 26 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``CHAPTER 26--CRIMINAL STREET GANGS

``Sec.
``521. Criminal street gang prosecutions.

``Sec. 521. Criminal street gang prosecutions

``(a) Street Gang Crime.--Whoever commits, or conspires,
threatens or attempts to commit, a gang crime for the purpose
of furthering the activities of a criminal street gang, or
gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in
such a gang, shall, in addition to being subject to a fine
under this title--
``(1) if the gang crime results in the death of any person,
be sentenced to death or life in prison;
``(2) if the gang crime is kidnapping, aggravated sexual
abuse, or maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of
years not less than 30;
``(3) if the gang crime is assault resulting in serious
bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for
life or any term of years not less than 20; and
``(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any
term of years not less than 10.
``(b) Forfeiture.--
``(1) In general.--The court, in imposing sentence on any
person convicted of a violation of this section, shall order,
in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of
any provision of State law, that such person shall forfeit to
the United States such person's interest in--
``(A) any property used, or intended to be used, in any
manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission
of, the violation; and
``(B) any property constituting, or derived from, any
proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a
result of the violation.
``(2) Application of controlled substances act.--
Subsections (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l),
(m), (n), (o), and (p) of section 413 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853) shall apply to a forfeiture
under this section as though it were a forfeiture under that
section.
``(c) Definitions.--The following definitions apply in this
section:
``(1) Criminal street gang.--The term `criminal street
gang' means a formal or informal group or association of 3 or
more individuals, who commit 2 or more gang crimes (one of
which is a crime of violence other than an offense punishable
under subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of section 401(b)(1) of
the Controlled Substances Act), in 2 or more separate
criminal episodes, in relation to the group or association,
if any of the activities of the criminal street gang affects
interstate or foreign commerce.
``(2) Gang crime.--The term `gang crime' means conduct
constituting any Federal or State crime, punishable by
imprisonment for more than one year, in any of the following
categories:
``(A) A crime of violence.
``(B) A crime involving obstruction of justice, tampering
with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant,
or burglary.
``(C) A crime involving the manufacturing, importing,
distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or
otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed
chemical (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
``(D) Any conduct punishable under section 844 (relating to
explosive materials), subsection (a)(1), (d), (g)(1) (where
the underlying conviction is a violent felony (as defined in
section 924(e)(2)(B) of this title) or is a serious drug
offense (as defined in section 924(e)(2)(A))), (g)(2),
(g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), (g)(9), (i), (j), (k), (n),
(o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating to
unlawful acts), or subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l),
(m), or (n) of section 924 (relating to penalties), section
930 (relating to possession of firearms and dangerous weapons
in Federal facilities), section 931 (relating to purchase,
ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons),
sections 1028 and 1029 (relating to fraud and related
activity in connection with identification documents or
access devices), section 1952 (relating to interstate and
foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering
enterprises), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of
monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in
monetary transactions in property derived from specified
unlawful activity), or sections 2312 through 2315 (relating
to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles or
stolen property).
``(E) Any conduct punishable under section 274 (relating to
bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277
(relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the
United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of
alien for immoral purpose) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act.
``(3) Aggravated sexual abuse.--The term `aggravated sexual
abuse' means an offense that, if committed in the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction would be an offense
under section 2241(a).
``(4) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and
any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United
States.''.
(b) Amendment Relating to Priority of Forfeiture Over
Orders for Restitution.--Section 3663(c)(4) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``chapter 46 or
chapter 96 of this title'' and inserting ``section 521, under
chapter 46 or 96,''.
(c) Money Laundering.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, section 521
(relating to criminal street gang prosecutions)'' before ``,
section 541''.

SEC. 102. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION IN AID OF
RACKETEERING.

(a) Substantive Changes to Offense.--Section 1952(a) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) so that the heading for the section reads as follows:

``Sec. 1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to
racketeering'';

(2) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
(3) by striking ``travels'' and all that follows through
``intent to'' and inserting ``, in or affecting interstate or
foreign commerce'';
(4) by striking ``(1) distribute'' and inserting ``(A)
distributes'';
(5) by striking ``(2) commit'' and inserting ``(B)
commits'';
(6) by striking ``(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish,
carry on, or facilitate'' and inserting ``(C) otherwise
promotes, manages, establishes, carries on, or facilitates'';
and
(7) by striking ``and thereafter'' and all that follows
through the end of the subsection and inserting the
following:

``or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as
provided in paragraph (2).
``(2) The punishment for an offense under this subsection
is--
``(A) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A) or (C)
of paragraph (1), a fine under this title and imprisonment
for not less than 5 nor more than 20 years; and
``(B) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (1), a fine under this title and imprisonment for
not less than 10 nor more than 30 years, but if death results
the offender shall be sentenced to death, or to imprisonment
for any term of years or for life.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 1952
in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 95 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to racketeering.''.

SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIME.

(a) Carjacking.--Section 2119 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``, with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily harm'' in the matter preceding paragraph (1);
(2) by inserting ``or conspires'' after ``attempts'' in the
matter preceding paragraph (1);
(3) by striking ``15'' and inserting ``20'' in paragraph
(1); and
(4) by striking ``or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or
both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned not less than 10 years
nor more than 30 years'' in paragraph (2).
(b) Clarification of Illegal Gun Transfers to Commit Drug
Trafficking Crime or Crimes of Violence.--Section 924(h) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(h) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce, knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing or intending
that the firearm will be used to commit, or possessed in
furtherance of, a crime of violence or drug trafficking
crime, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not
less than 5 years nor more than 20 years.''.
(c) Amendment of Special Sentencing Provision Relating to
Limitations on Criminal Association.--Section 3582(d) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``section 521 (criminal street gang
prosecutions), in'' after ``felony set forth in'';
(2) by striking ``specified person, other than his
attorney, upon'' and inserting ``specified person upon''; and
(3) by inserting ``a criminal street gang or'' before ``an
illegal enterprise''.
(d) Conspiracy Penalty.--Section 371 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``five'' and inserting
``20''.

SEC. 104. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR USE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
FACILITIES IN THE COMMISSION OF MURDER-FOR-HIRE
AND OTHER FELONY CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.

(a) In General.--Section 1958 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:

``Sec. 1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the
commission of murder-for-hire and other felony crimes of
violence'';

(2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or other crime of
violence, punishable by imprisonment for more than one
year,'' after ``intent that a murder''; and
(3) in subsection (a), by striking ``shall be fined'' the
first place it appears and all that follows through the end
of such subsection and inserting the following:

``shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under this
title
``(1) if the crime of violence or conspiracy results in the
death of any person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
``(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated
sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, or a
conspiracy to commit such a crime of violence, be imprisoned
for life or any term of years not less than 30;
``(3) if the crime of violence is an assault, or a
conspiracy to assault, that results in serious

[[Page H3145]]

bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for
life or any term of years not less than 20; and
``(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any
term of years not less than 10.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 1958
in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 95 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of
murder-for-hire and other felony crimes of violence.''.

SEC. 105. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR VIOLENT CRIMES IN AID OF
RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.

(a) Offense.--Section 1959(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Whoever commits, or conspires, threatens, or attempts
to commit, a crime of violence for the purpose of furthering
the activities of an enterprise engaged in racketeering
activity, or for the purpose of gaining entrance to or
maintaining or increasing position in, such an enterprise,
shall, unless the death penalty is otherwise imposed, in
addition and consecutive to the punishment provided for any
other violation of this chapter and in addition to being
subject to a fine under this title--
``(1) if the crime of violence results in the death of any
person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
``(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated
sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, be
imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 30;
``(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting in
serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be
imprisoned for life or for any term of years not less than
20; and
``(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any
term of years not less than 10.''.
(b) Venue.--Section 1959 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following: --
``(c) A prosecution for a violation of this section may be
brought in--
``(1) the judicial district in which the crime of violence
occurred; or
``(2) any judicial district in which racketeering activity
of the enterprise occurred.''.

SEC. 106. MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED DURING
AND IN RELATION TO A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.

(a) In General.--Part D of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation to a
drug trafficking crime

``Sec. 424. (a) In General.--Whoever commits, or conspires,
or attempts to commit, a crime of violence during and in
relation to a drug trafficking crime, shall, unless the death
penalty is otherwise imposed, in addition and consecutive to
the punishment provided for the drug trafficking crime and in
addition to being subject to a fine under this title--
``(1) if the crime of violence results in the death of any
person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
``(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated
sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, be
imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 30;
``(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting in
serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be
imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 20;
and
``(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any
term of years not less than 10.
``(b) Venue.--A prosecution for a violation of this section
may be brought in--
``(1) the judicial district in which the murder or other
crime of violence occurred; or
``(2) any judicial district in which the drug trafficking
crime may be prosecuted.
``(c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
``(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given
that term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code; and
``(2) the term `drug trafficking crime' has the meaning
given that term in section 924(c)(2) of title 18, United
States Code.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
423, the following:

``Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in
relation to a drug trafficking crime.''.

SEC. 107. MULTIPLE INTERSTATE MURDER.

(a) Offense.--Chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the
commission of multiple murder

``(a) In General.--Whoever travels in or causes another
(including the intended victim) to travel in interstate or
foreign commerce, or uses or causes another (including the
intended victim) to use the mail or any facility of
interstate or foreign commerce, or who conspires or attempts
to do so, with intent that 2 or more intentional homicides be
committed in violation of the laws of any State or the United
States shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under
this title--
``(1) if the offense results in the death of any person, be
sentenced to death or life in prison;
``(2) if the offense results is assault resulting in
serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be
imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 20;
and
``(3) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any
term of years not less than 10.
``(b) Definition.--The term `State' means each of the
several States of the United States, the District of
Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of
the United States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of
multiple murder.''.

SEC. 108. ADDITIONAL RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.

Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, or would have
been so chargeable if the act or threat had not been
committed in Indian country (as defined in section 1151) or
in any other area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction,'' after
``chargeable under State law''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``section 1123
(relating to interstate murder),'' after ``section 1084
(relating to the transmission of gambling information),''.

SEC. 109. EXPANSION OF REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST RELEASE
OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH FIREARMS OFFENSES.

Section 3142 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (e), in the matter following paragraph
(3), by inserting ``an offense under subsection (g)(1) (where
the underlying conviction is a drug trafficking crime (as
defined in section 924(c))), (g)(2), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8),
or (g)(9) of section 922, or a crime of violence,'' after
``that the person committed''; and
(2) in subsection (g), by amending paragraph (1) to read as
follows:
``(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
including whether the offense is a crime of violence, or
involves a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or
destructive devise;''.

SEC. 110. VENUE IN CAPITAL CASES.

Section 3235 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 3235. Venue in capital cases

``(a) The trial for any offense punishable by death shall
be held in the district where the offense was committed or in
any district in which the offense began, continued, or was
completed.
``(b) If the offense, or related conduct, under subsection
(a) involves activities which affect interstate or foreign
commerce, or the importation of an object or person into the
United States, such offense may be prosecuted in any district
in which those activities occurred.''.

SEC. 111. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIME.

(a) In General.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 3298. Violent crime offenses

``No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any
noncapital felony, crime of violence, including any
racketeering activity or gang crime which involves any crime
of violence, unless the indictment is found or the
information is instituted not later than 15 years after the
date on which the alleged violation occurred or the
continuing offense was completed.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``3298. Violent crime offenses.''.

SEC. 112. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF CRIME OF VIOLENCE.

Section 16(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) any other offense that is an offense punishable by
imprisonment for more than one year and that, by its nature,
involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used
against the person or property of another, or is an offense
punishable under subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of section
401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act.''.

SEC. 113. CLARIFICATION TO HEARSAY EXCEPTION FOR FORFEITURE
BY WRONGDOING.

Rule 804(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is amended
to read as follows:
``(6) Forfeiture by wrongdoing.--A statement offered
against a party who has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing,
or who could reasonably foresee such wrongdoing would take
place, if the wrongdoing was intended to, and did, procure
the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.''.

SEC. 114. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS IN
CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING.

(a) In General.--Section 924(c) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``or conspires to
commit any of the above acts, shall, for each instance in
which the firearm is used, carried, or possessed'';
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``5 years'' and inserting
``7 years''; and
(C) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting the
following:
``(ii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term
of imprisonment of not less than 15 years; and
``(iii) if the firearm is used to wound, injure, or maim
another person, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not
less than 20 years.''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (4).
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 924 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking subsection (o).

SEC. 115. TRANSFER OF JUVENILES.

The 4th undesignated paragraph of section 5032 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--

[[Page H3146]]

(1) by striking ``A juvenile'' where it appears at the
beginning of the paragraph and inserting ``Except as
otherwise provided in this chapter, a juvenile'' ;
(2) by striking ``as an adult, except that, with'' and
inserting ``as an adult. With''; and
(3) by striking ``However, a juvenile'' and all that
follows through ``criminal prosecution.'' at the end of the
paragraph and inserting ``The Attorney General may prosecute
as an adult a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an
act after that juvenile's 16th birthday which if committed by
an adult would be a crime of violence that is a felony, an
offense described in subsection (d), (i), (j), (k), (o), (p),
(q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating to unlawful acts),
or subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of
section 924 (relating to penalties), section 930 (relating to
possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal
facilities), or section 931 (relating to purchase, ownership,
or possession of body armor by violent felons). The decision
whether or not to prosecute a juvenile as an adult under the
immediately preceding sentence is not subject to judicial
review in any court. In a prosecution under that sentence,
the juvenile may be prosecuted and convicted as an adult for
any other offense which is properly joined under the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, and may also be convicted as an
adult of any lesser included offense.''.

TITLE II--INCREASED FEDERAL RESOURCES TO DETER AND PREVENT AT-RISK
YOUTH FROM JOINING ILLEGAL STREET GANGS

SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF AND ASSISTANCE FOR ``HIGH
INTENSITY'' INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY AREAS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section the following definitions
shall apply:
(1) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means a Governor of a
State or the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
(2) High intensity interstate gang activity area.--The term
``high intensity interstate gang activity area'' means an
area within a State that is designated as a high intensity
interstate gang activity area under subsection (b)(1).
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means a State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth,
territory, or possession of the United States.
(b) High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas.--
(1) Designation.--The Attorney General, after consultation
with the Governors of appropriate States, may designate as
high intensity interstate gang activity areas, specific areas
that are located within 1 or more States.
(2) Assistance.--In order to provide Federal assistance to
high intensity interstate gang activity areas, the Attorney
General shall--
(A) establish criminal street gang enforcement teams,
consisting of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
authorities, for the coordinated investigation, disruption,
apprehension, and prosecution of criminal street gangs and
offenders in each high intensity interstate gang activity
area;
(B) direct the reassignment or detailing from any Federal
department or agency (subject to the approval of the head of
that department or agency, in the case of a department or
agency other than the Department of Justice) of personnel to
each criminal street gang enforcement team;
(C) provide all necessary funding for the operation of the
criminal street gang enforcement team in each high intensity
interstate gang activity area; and
(D) provide all necessary funding for national and regional
meetings of criminal street gang enforcement teams, and all
other related organizations, as needed, to ensure effective
operation of such teams through the sharing of intelligence,
best practices and for any other related purpose.
(3) Composition of criminal street gang enforcement team.--
The team established pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) shall
consist of agents and officers, where feasible, from--
(A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(B) the Drug Enforcement Administration;
(C) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives;
(D) the United States Marshals Service;
(E) the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
of the Department of Homeland Security;
(F) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(G) State and local law enforcement; and
(H) Federal, State, and local prosecutors.
(4) Criteria for designation.--In considering an area for
designation as a high intensity interstate gang activity area
under this section, the Attorney General shall consider--
(A) the current and predicted levels of gang crime activity
in the area;
(B) the extent to which violent crime in the area appears
to be related to criminal street gang activity, such as drug
trafficking, murder, robbery, assaults, carjacking, arson,
kidnapping, extortion, and other criminal activity;
(C) the extent to which State and local law enforcement
agencies have committed resources to--
(i) respond to the gang crime problem; and
(ii) participate in a gang enforcement team;
(D) the extent to which a significant increase in the
allocation of Federal resources would enhance local response
to the gang crime activities in the area; and
(E) any other criteria that the Attorney General considers
to be appropriate.
(c) Additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys.--The Attorney
General is authorized to hire 94 additional Assistant United
States attorneys to carry out the provisions of this section.
Each attorney hired under this subsection shall be assigned
to a high intensity interstate gang activity area.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated--
(1) $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through
2010 to carry out subsection (b); and
(2) $7,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through
2010 to carry out subsection (c).

SEC. 202. GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL PROSECUTORS TO COMBAT
VIOLENT CRIME AND TO PROTECT WITNESSES AND
VICTIMS OF CRIMES.

(a) In General.--Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is amended
--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) to hire additional prosecutors to--
``(A) allow more cases to be prosecuted; and
``(B) reduce backlogs;
``(6) to fund technology, equipment, and training for
prosecutors and law enforcement in order to increase accurate
identification of gang members and violent offenders, and to
maintain databases with such information to facilitate
coordination among law enforcement and prosecutors; and
``(7) to fund technology, equipment, and training for
prosecutors to increase the accurate identification and
successful prosecution of young violent offenders.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 31707 of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to carry out this
subtitle.''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in
order except those printed in House Report 109-76. Each amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered 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.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1, printed in House
Report 109-76.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order
under the rule.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:
Page 4, lines 13 through 14, strike ``under subparagraphs
(A), (B), or (C)'' and insert ``under subparagraph (A), (B),
or (C)''.
Page 4, line 23, insert ``(other than a crime of violence
against the property of another)'' before the period.
Page 7, line 10 through the matter after line 2, page 9,
strike section 102 and insert the following:

SEC. 102. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION IN AID OF
RACKETEERING.

Section 1952 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``perform'' and all that
follows through the end of the subsection and inserting
``perform an act described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3), or
conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in
subsection (d).''; and
(2) by adding at the end following:
``(d) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a)
is--
``(1) in the case of a violation of paragraph (1) or (3), a
fine under this title and imprisonment for not less than 5
nor more than 20 years; and
``(2) in the case of a violation of paragraph (2), a fine
under this title and imprisonment for not less than 10 nor
more than 30 years, but if death results the offender shall
be sentenced to death, or to imprisonment for any term of
years or for life.''.
Page 9, line 24, strike ``drug trafficking crime,'' and
insert ``drug trafficking crime (as defined in subsection
(c)(2)),''.
Page 11, line 11, strike ``this title'' and insert ``this
title--''.
Page 12, line 10, insert ``, as consideration for the
receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to
pay, anything of pecuniary value from an enterprise engaged
in racketeering activity, or'' after ``crime of violence''.
Page 13, line 8, strike ``following: --'' and insert
``following:''.
Page 15, line 7, strike ``423,'' and insert ``423''.
Page 16, line 1, strike ``is assault resulting''.
Page 19, line 8, strike ``force may be used against'' and
insert ``injury may result to''.
Page 19, line 10, strike ``subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C)''
and insert ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)''.
Page 20, after line 17, insert the following new subsection
and redesignate the succeeding subsection accordingly:
(b) Clarification of Ban on Possession of Handguns by
Juveniles.--Section 922(x)(3) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--

[[Page H3147]]

(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a
juvenile, while in the presence of a parent or guardian of
the juvenile, if such parent or guardian, as the case may be,
is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from
possessing a firearm. ''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the gentleman
from Wisconsin, (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).

Modification to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment be modified by the form that I have placed at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to amendment No. 1 offered by Mr.
Sensenbrenner: Strike that portion of the amendment which
proposes to insert material on page 20.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered
by the gentleman from Wisconsin?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I
would ask the gentleman to please explain the modification, if that is
not part of his presentation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the material that is on page 20
relates to a clarification of the ban on possession of hand guns by
juveniles. It appears to me that the clarification does not clarify the
statute. The best thing to do is to completely remove the clarification
as was proposed, thus leaving the current law intact, which means that
if a juvenile possesses a hand gun, he will have to have a written note
stating that he is authorized to do so from his parent.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr.
Chairman, how does the modification change the original manager's
amendment?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further,
the original manager's amendment said if the parent accompanied the
juvenile, the juvenile did not have to have the note. What this
modification does is to require the juvenile to continue having the
note.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered
by the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this manager's amendment to correct and clarify
several provisions of the legislation. Let me briefly summarize the
changes made by the amendment, as modified.
First, the amendment would exclude property crimes from the crime of
violence definition of the gang crime statute created by this
legislation. The purpose of this change is to ensure that the gang
crime statute is applied as intended to dismantle and disrupt violent
gangs and to prevent unintended application of the statute for property
crimes.

{time} 1515

Second, the amendment would add conspiracies as a criminal violation
and increase criminal penalties for any such violation under section
1952 of title 18, Interstate and Foreign Travel in Aid of Racketeering
Enterprises.
Third, the manager's amendment would ensure that a portion of title
18 under existing law, which was inadvertently omitted from the
introduced and reported versions of H.R. 1279, is not changed as a
result of enacting this legislation.
Fourth, the amendment would clarify the crime of violence definition
under section 16(b) of title 18 to include an act that by its nature
creates a substantial risk that physical injury may result to a person
or property of another.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to seek
the time in opposition although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin for working with me on this section, section 922(x) which he
just basically took out. I appreciate him working with us on that
issue.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, addressing gang violence across this Nation is
absolutely an important step so that people can feel safe in their
communities and so that our youth will grow up to be productive, happy,
satisfied adults. While I commend my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle for addressing this important issue, I am deeply disappointed
in their legislation.
Gang violence affects most communities across the United States. In
fact, I represented the Sixth District of California, which is north of
the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. In my district, there is no
exception. We too have gang violence. The largest city in my district,
Santa Rosa, is increasingly faced with gang violence. Drive-by
shootings are becoming so common that the newspapers no longer report
the incidents on the front page.
Local communities must address this problem, no question; and Santa
Rosa is working hard to do so. With the help of new State of California
funding through Measure Zero, a sales tax that passed in the last go-
around, the city is providing diversion programs that appeal to youth,
such as after-school programs and increased recreational activities.
Community leaders are finding more job opportunities for young people,
and adults are mentoring them and exposing them to situations that are
positive alternatives to gang life. Even the conservative think tank,
Mr. Speaker, the Heritage Foundation, agrees that these are the best
ways to curb gang violence.
This bill does not provide significant funding to States and local
communities to build on their successful local programs. Rather, H.R.
1279 creates new death penalties, mandatory minimum sentences, and
measures to prosecute children in adult court, in other words, applying
adult punishment to young people. This is the wrong approach, and I
cannot support it. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R.
1279 and insisting that we go back and prepare legislation with real
workable solutions and alternatives to gang violence.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 109-76.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cuellar

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Cuellar:
Page 26, after line 2, insert the following (and
redesignate succeeding subsections accordingly):
(c) National Gang Intelligence Center.--
(1) Establishment.--The Attorney General shall establish a
National Gang Intelligence Center to be housed at and
administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
collect, analyze, and disseminate gang activity information
from--
(A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(B) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives;
(C) the Drug Enforcement Administration;
(D) the Bureau of Prisons;
(E) the United States Marshals Service;

[[Page H3148]]

(F) the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
of the Department of Homeland Security;
(G) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(H) State and local law enforcement;
(I) Federal, State, and local prosecutors;
(J) Federal, State, and local probation and parole offices;
and
(K) Federal, State, and local prisons and jails.
(2) Information.--The Center established under paragraph
(1) shall make available the information referred to in
paragraph (1) to--
(A) Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies;
(B) Federal, State, and local corrections agencies and
penal institutions; and
(C) Federal, State, and local prosecutorial agencies.
(3) Annual report.--The Center established under paragraph
(1) shall annually submit to Congress a report on gang
activity.
Page 26, line 10, strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert
``$60,000,000''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that gangs are no longer just an urban
problem. They affect every community. As law enforcement officials from
big cities to small towns will tell you, to combat the problem we all
need to work together, share information, and identify the issues that
will help us strike at the heart of gang violence. My amendment gives
us the means to do just that.
It would establish a national gang intelligence center at the FBI to
help law enforcement officials across the country share information
about gangs and gang members so that we can identify emerging problems
before they take root. Last year, $10 million was appropriated for the
center, an effort led by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who
has long been a strong supporter of law enforcement. My amendment would
simply authorize the creation of the center.
Mr. Chairman, by helping law enforcement share information, we will
be giving our police on the streets a powerful tool in the fight
against violence and help them better protect our citizens.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the
gentleman's amendment. It provides an authorization for a program that
already has been funded by the Committee on Appropriations. It is a
good amendment. It helps the bill out. I urge Members to vote for it.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 109-76.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas:
Page 26, after line 2, insert the following new subsection
(and redesignate succeeding subsections accordingly):
(c) National and Regional Gang Activity Databases.--
(1) Databases required.--From amounts made available to
carry out this section, the Attorney General shall
establish--
(A) for each high intensity interstate gang activity area,
a regional gang activity database; and
(B) a national gang activity database that replicates the
information in the regional databases.
(2) Description.--Each regional gang activity database
required by paragraph (1) shall--
(A) be designed to disseminate gang information to law
enforcement agencies throughout the region;
(B) contain critical information on gangs, gang members,
firearms, criminal activities, vehicles, and other
information useful for investigators in solving gang-related
crimes; and
(C) operate in a manner that enables law enforcement
agencies to--
(i) identify gang members involved in crimes;
(ii) track the movement of gangs and members throughout the
region;
(iii) coordinate police response to gang violence;
(iv) enhance officer safety;
(v) provide realistic, up to date figures and statistical
data on gang crime and violence;
(vi) forecast trends and respond accordingly; and
(vii) more easily solve crimes and prevent violence.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Let me applaud the author and the ranking member and the Chair of
this committee for addressing the issue of gangs. I do not agree with
all of the approach, but I do agree we need to address the issue, and I
rise today to speak about the creation of databases to track gang
activity.
In addition to developing a solid gang prevention strategy, we must
equip our law enforcement professionals with the tools to protect our
communities. Recently, law enforcement in Dallas spoke to me regarding
their desire to track gang activity. I work closely with the law
enforcement divisions in my area, and they wanted a system that would
allow them to easily access and share information on gang activity. I
am offering an amendment that will do just that.
This database will contain critical information on gangs, gang
members, firearms, criminal activities and histories, vehicles, and
other fields of information necessary for investigators to solve gang-
related crimes.
In addition, it will allow law enforcement to track the movement of
gangs and members throughout the country, coordinate police response to
gang violence, and enhance officer safety. This system is a fundamental
step in combating future gang violence. I ask my colleagues for their
support for this important amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding. This is also a very good amendment. I would hope everybody
would support it.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 109-76.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Watson

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Watson:
Page 26, after line 2, insert the following:
(5) Consultation required.--The Attorney General may not
designate a high intensity interstate gang activity area
without first consulting with and receiving comment from
local elected officials representing communities within the
State of proposed designation.

[[Page H3149]]

only requires the Attorney General to consult Governors of the States.
California is three States in one; and for a person like me who lives
in South Los Angeles, right in the middle of a gang area, I would have
a lot to tell about designating that gang area.
The underlying bill gives local communities no input. My amendment
would simply require the Attorney General to seek input from local
elected officials before designating an area as being a high-intensity
gang area. This amendment is not intended to slow down the process of
designation or give local officials veto power that supersedes the
power of Federal and State officials. Rather, it lets the communities
and the people that represent them have a voice in the decision-making.
Addressing the gang problem in our communities is an issue that
requires all levels of government working together. Who knows better
the problems facing these communities' constituents than the
communities themselves? Reducing gang violence requires hands-on
intervention and input from those most affected by gang violence.
These communities know, first-hand, the damage gang violence does in
their neighborhoods everyday. Their opinions should be heard on the
state and federal levels.
The communities affected by gang violence must have the chance to
express their views before neighborhoods are classified as a High
Intensity Gang Area. Local officials know better than anyone else what
is occurring on a day to day basis in their jurisdictions. This
amendment would allow participation on all levels of government in this
designation process. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment and allow local elected officials, in conjunction with
federal and state officials, to have input on how their communities are
branded as High Intensity Gang Areas.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WATSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This also is
a very good amendment. I would hope that the Committee would
unanimously approve it.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the Members would support my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 109-76.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Watson

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Watson:
Page 26, after line 7, insert the following:
(d) Additional BATFE Inspectors and Agents.--The Attorney
General, acting through the Director of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, is authorized to
hire 100 additional inspectors and 100 additional agents for
the Bureau. Each inspector and agent hired under this
subsection shall be assigned to a high intensity interstate
gang activity area, for the purpose of assisting local law
enforcement agencies to provide more accurate and complete
reports to the Bureau of weapons used by gangs in the area.
Page 26, line 8, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Page 26, line 11, strike ``and''.
Page 26, line 13, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 26, after line 13, insert the following:
(3) $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through
2010 to carry out subsection (d).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would add 100 new inspectors and 100 new agents to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. These inspectors
and agents would be assigned to the new high-intensity interstate gang
activity areas created by H.R. 1279.
As I mentioned, my congressional district is part of a high-crime
area, and there is a gun shop in it that has sparked my attention in
recent months. I have been working with BATFE to ensure that this shop
does not become a source of gang weaponry in my district. One comment I
have repeatedly heard from the bureau is that they simply do not have
the personnel necessary to crack down on gun-law violators and keep
guns out of the hands of violent gangs.
The lack of proper inspections and detailed reports on how guns get
into the hands of gang members hampers the fight against these violent
gangs. Congress must assist the bureau by allowing it to have an
adequate amount of staff to accurately investigate how illegal guns are
getting into our communities and make every effort to remove weapons
from gang members' hands.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WATSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding. She has got a second good amendment. I urge the Committee to
approve it and allow her to leave batting 2 for 2.
Ms. WATSON. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will just finish up.
These additional inspectors and agents are essential because they
would be assigned to assist local law enforcement to cut off the supply
of weapons and ammunition to gang members. This amendment would also
help local law enforcement and the BATFE compile much-needed data on
how weapons are obtained and used by gangs.
This amendment is not a gun control amendment; it is a law
enforcement amendment. By improving our enforcement of existing gun
laws, gang members will lose the dominating weaponry that permits gangs
to outgun police and kill innocent people.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should make every effort to prevent
gang members from obtaining their ``Weapons of Mass Destruction.'' I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives continue the assault on
crime in our communities while cutting off the flow of guns to gang
members.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 109-76.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Wynn

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Wynn:
Page 22, after line 3, insert the following:

SEC. 116. PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN ABOUT NEW CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

The Attorney General is authorized to conduct media
campaigns in those areas designated as high intensity
interstate gang activity areas and those areas with existing
and emerging problem with gangs, as needed, to educate
individuals there about the changes in criminal penalties
made by this Act, and to report to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives the amount of
expenditures and all other aspects of the media campaign.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think it is very laudable that we are taking up the issue of gun
violence and gang violence. This is a problem that affects just about
every community; and I think this bill, while I do not agree with all
of its approaches, certainly has merit. It relies in significant part
on mandatory minimum sentences. Some people will say we have gone too
far. The point is with mandatory minimums, you have two aspects: one,
the punitive aspect. We will get bad actors off the street. The second
aspect is deterrence. People being aware of mandatory minimums will
not, in fact, do the crime. In the instance of a 30-year mandatory
minimum sentence for murder, for sexual

[[Page H3150]]

assault, for maiming, this is designed to discourage people from
engaging in this conduct.
My amendment would simply authorize the Attorney General to engage in
a media campaign to let people know about these new mandatory minimums
so that we can, in fact, have a deterrent effect.

{time} 1530

The deterrence requires a certain knowledge of the consequences of
one's acts. By having a media campaign, we are in a position to let
young people who may be either in a gang or contemplating joining a
gang understand that, if they engage in a maiming, cutting off
someone's arm, if they engage in an aggravated sexual assault, that
they are facing a potential 30-year mandatory minimum sentence, the
idea being that this mandatory minimum sentence would discourage the
conduct. I think the media campaign contained and authorized under this
amendment would further that goal. So I would ask for favorable
consideration.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, another good amendment has been
offered, and I would urge the Committee to adopt that, and I thank the
gentleman for offering it.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for
his support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 109-76.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Goodlatte:
Page 22, after line 3, insert the following:

SEC. 116. CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AND DRUG CRIMES COMMITTED BY
ILLEGAL ALIENS.

(a) Offenses.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after chapter 51 the following new chapter:

``CHAPTER 52--ILLEGAL ALIENS

``Sec.
``1131. Enhanced penalties for certain crimes committed by illegal
aliens.

``Sec. 1131. Enhanced penalties for certain crimes committed
by illegal aliens

``Whoever, being an alien who is unlawfully present in the
United States, commits, conspires or attempts to commit, a
crime of violence (as defined in section 16) or a drug
trafficking offense (as defined in section 924), shall be
fined under this title and sentenced to not less than 5 years
in prison. If the defendant was previously ordered removed
under the Immigration and Nationality Act on the grounds of
having committed a crime, the defendant shall be sentenced to
not less than 15 years in prison . A sentence of imprisonment
imposed under this section shall run consecutively to any
other sentence of imprisonment imposed for any other
crime.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the
beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 51
the following new item:

``52. Illegal aliens............................................1131''.

SEC. 117. LISTING OF IMMIGRATION VIOLATORS IN THE NATIONAL
CRIME INFORMATION CENTER DATABASE.

(a) Provision of Information to the NCIC.--Not later than
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security of the
Department of Homeland Security shall provide the National
Crime Information Center of the Department of Justice with
such information as the Director may have on any and all
aliens against whom a final order of removal has been issued,
and any and all aliens who have signed a voluntary departure
agreement. Such information shall be provided to the National
Crime Information Center regardless of whether or not the
alien received notice of a final order of removal and even if
the alien has already been removed.
(b) Inclusion of Information in the NCIC Database.--Section
534(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve records of
violations of the immigration laws of the United States,
regardless of whether or not the alien has received notice of
the violation and even if the alien has already been removed;
and''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise to offer an amendment to crack down on gangs comprised of
illegal aliens, such as MS-13, which Newsweek recently called ``the
most dangerous gang in America.''
In my congressional district alone, we have recently witnessed a
disturbing rise in the level of gang activity as well as the number of
illegal aliens participating in this gang activity. The FBI has
recognized the existence of at least six separate gangs in the
Shenandoah Valley, with the largest being the notorious Salvadoran gang
Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13. MS-13 is known for such heinous crimes as
shootings, rapes and machete attacks, among others, and is estimated to
have over 1,500 members in northern and northwestern Virginia alone.
The number of gang members and violent criminals who are illegal
aliens and who have been previously deported is staggering. Recently,
at the Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Subcommittee,
Commonwealth's Attorney Marsha Garst of Rockingham County, Virginia,
testified that illegal aliens make up 50 percent of the membership of
MS-13 and 75 percent of the membership of another gang in that area,
Surenos 13.
According to the FBI, MS-13 is a highly sophisticated gang of illegal
and previously deported aliens that is committed to national expansion
in the United States and is built on a infrastructure which transports
new members or previously deported members across our borders with the
intention and plan to expand their activities into new communities and
enrich themselves all at the expense of our communities and our law-
abiding neighbors. Make no mistake about it: MS-13 is committed to a
war by invading and taking over our communities, and deportation means
nothing to them because they simply return to our country with yet
another new identity, crossing our borders without any reservation and
resuming their illegal activities, terrorizing our communities without
fear of harsh punishment.
It is now time for us to disable MS-13 and its vicious cycle of
violence. My amendment does just that. It gives law enforcement the
ability to tack on more severe punishments rather than simply returning
MS-13 members to El Salvador or other countries where they will turn
around and sneak right across our borders once again. If faced with a
choice of putting these gang members in jail or deporting them and
having them return, the choice is clear: We must incarcerate them and
bring freedom back to our neighborhoods.
The growth in illegal alien participation gangs is not limited to
Virginia or just to MS-13. Across the Nation, the number of illegal
aliens joining gangs and the number of gang members who have re-entered
the country after deportation is alarming. According to the testimony
of Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, a confidential
California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent
of the 20,000-strong ``18th Street gang'' in Southern California was
illegal. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conservatively puts the
number of illegal aliens in MS-13 as a majority. Sixty percent of the
leadership of the ``Colombia Lil' Cycos'' gang, which uses murder and
racketeering to control the drug market around Los Angeles' MacArthur
Park, consisted of illegal aliens in 2002. And according to the Los
Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Department arrests about 2,500
criminally convicted deportees annually. Let me make that clear:
Annually, the Los Angeles Police Department estimates that 2,500 of the
people that they arrest each year have already previously committed a
crime and already previously been deported, and they have come back
into the country, and 2,500 of them are arrested yet again.

[[Page H3151]]

My amendment would help to stop the entry and re-entry of gang
members into the country by imposing strict penalties on illegal aliens
who participate in gang activities and who have already shown they will
commit violent crimes and drug-trafficking offenses. With stiff new
penalties, we can deter these gang members from re-entering the United
States with the intention of joining or resuming violent gang
activities.
Specifically, my amendment would add 5 years of prison time to any
sentence for violent crimes or drug-trafficking offenses when the
violator is an illegal alien. It will also add 15 years of prison time
to any such sentence if the illegal alien had been previously deported
on the grounds of a criminal offense and had re-entered the country. In
addition, the amendment would require the Department of Homeland
Security to send all the names of individuals who are subject to
deportation orders or who have signed voluntary deportation orders to
the National Crime Information Center, the NCIC, so that information on
illegal alien gang members can be more easily accessed.
We must shut down this revolving door of criminal illegal aliens. It
is time to say to them, if they come here illegally and commit a gang
crime, they will do the time. Our children and our communities deserve
nothing less.
This amendment will give law enforcement additional tools in the
fight against some of the most vicious gangs in America and will help
deter violent criminals from entering the country to join gangs.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the House that it is already illegal
to murder, rape, kidnap, cut off hands with machete attacks, conspiracy
to do any of those acts. We lock people up for that. In fact, since we
are talking about immigrants, one in 27 Hispanic males 25 to 29 are in
jail today already. Those are crimes. They are doing the time. Also,
for those who are crossing State lines and all that, we have RICO,
Continuing Criminal Enterprise. That is already the law.
But this amendment just adds insult. And let us be clear: Second-
offense fist fight by a bunch of kids, under the bill, is 10 years
mandatory minimum. This adds 5 years to the 10-year mandatory minimum
for second-offense fist fighting. I think that is excessive. If the
fist fight deserves more time, the Sentencing Commission can deal with
that. I would hope that we would defeat the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the distinguished author of
this amendment if this idea occurred to him during the time that we
considered the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary? Because I have
never heard of this before.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this is something that has been
discussed since the committee acted and passed the legislation out, but
we felt very strongly that this would be a good addition to the
legislation because of the fact that so many of these gang members are
illegal aliens who have re-entered the country after already having
been deported and having committed crimes earlier. Something needs to
be done more than simple deportation when they come right back in and
commit more crimes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but we are trying to
get rid of criminals from coming into the country, and what the
gentleman is doing in this amendment is keeping them in the country. In
other words, deporting them is not good enough. We want to keep them in
our prison systems, which now house more citizens, and now, we are
adding noncitizens to the population of those incarcerated in America.
And I have some reservations about piling it on. We have never talked
about this position before in the subcommittee or full committee of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to make
that observation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that this has a great
deterrent effect. When the word gets out that they come back into this
country and they get arrested after they have been deported and they
are going to do serious time in the slammer, they are not as likely to
come back. And with the efforts that are ongoing with the REAL ID Act,
we are going to keep a lot of these people out of the country with that
method, and we are going to find them when they come into the country
and try to get driver's licenses. But when they do, they need to know
that they are going to face serious time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf), a real leader in the war against gangs in America.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Let me
read an article from the Washington Post, ``In what officials suspect
is the latest horror committed by gangs, 28 people, including six
children, were killed December 24 when gunmen opened fire on a bus full
of passengers near the northern Honduran city of San Pedro Sula.''
Twenty-eight individuals, six of them were children.
Another article said there was a request by the presidents of four
Central American countries for help in gang battles. The request came
as U.S. authorities revealed that they had issued an alert for the
suspected mastermind of the killing of these 28 people near San Pedro
Sula. The individual is a suspected member of the MS-13 gang and may
have already entered the United States illegally.
The gentleman is right. That individual who was involved in the
killing of 28 individuals in San Pedro Sula in Honduras was arrested in
McAllen, Texas, coming back into the country after killing 28 people.
I think the gentleman's amendment is exactly right on target. There
are many cases whereby they come back into the country and commit
violent crimes after having committed violent crimes down in El
Salvador. But 28 people in that little village in that town of San
Pedro Sula, and then the man is arrested not in Honduras but up here in
Texas.
With that, I just urge Members to strongly support the amendment. It
is very good.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. And
I am surprised that my friend would propose that we increase the amount
of money that taxpayers are paying for incarceration to now expand it
to illegal aliens who commit crimes, leave the country and come back
in. Where are we going to get all of this money?
We have one of the highest incarceration rates of any nation in the
entire world. And we are spending a disproportionate amount of money on
incarceration.
I submit to my colleagues that I think deportation is the answer, but
have they thought about the fact that they should place the
responsibility on keeping these criminals out of the country on the
heads of the leaders of those countries?
We go right along with the leaders of these countries on trade
agreements, on foreign assistance, with all kinds of assistance to
these governments.
I would submit to my colleagues that if they submit the name of
everybody that they deport and they send them back and they say to the
leaders of these countries, If these people come back, we are going to
penalize you in one of several ways that we cooperate with you; again,
we have so many ways that we provide assistance to other countries, and
we have got to make them responsible for keeping their criminals at
home.
So I do not like the idea that we have a problem and that we are
deporting criminals, and they are coming back, and we are going to make
the American people pay for it. Make those other governments pay for
it. Do not end up in press conferences with this administration, the
head of our government's Members of Congress, working out all kinds of
arrangements with

[[Page H3152]]

these governments to help them in so many ways, whether it is trade,
foreign assistance or 909 other ways that we help them. Make them keep
their criminals at home.

{time} 1545

Penalize them if they do not. Do not charge the American taxpayer.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am sure the President of Honduras
would have loved to have kept the person who killed the 26 people in
his country there and tried him and punished him there; but the fact of
the matter is, the borders are leaky. Some of us have been trying to
ensure the security of the borders through various measures, like the
REAL ID Act, which has been signed. I would hope that that concern
would spread as we deal with other immigration matters such as the
numbers of border patrol people that we need to put on the border.
I support this amendment because it creates enhanced penalties for
illegal aliens or those ordered deported on the grounds of having
committed a crime who subsequently commit a crime of violence or a
drug-trafficking crime.
An illegal alien who commits a drug-trafficking crime or crime of
violence would receive a consecutive sentence of 5 years, and an alien
who previously has been deported for a crime and subsequently commits a
crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime would receive a
consecutive sentence of 15 years. In addition, the amendment would
require the Department of Homeland Security to provide the National
Crime Information Center with information on illegal aliens.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is exactly right, as is the
chairman. Here we have a Los Angeles Times story: ``Four presidents
seek help in gang battle. Central American leaders say the groups pose
a hemispheric threat augmented by U.S. deportation of criminals.''
You cannot keep sending them back down there where they have no
ability to handle them and they come right back up here and commit more
crimes on our citizens. This is an important amendment that will give
teeth to the message: do not come back in the United States. If you do,
we are going to keep you in the slammer.
There are many, many examples of what illegal aliens have done. In
Virginia, recent gang victims have been hacked by machetes and had
fingers cut off. In May 2004, a 16-year-old boy in Fairfax County had
several fingers chopped off in an attack by a machete-wielding
assailant. A week later, a 17-year-old youth was shot dead in Herndon
by an assailant on a bicycle. In July 17, 2003, in Shenandoah County,
Virginia, MS-13 gang members violently murdered a 17-year-old pregnant
Federal witness, Brenda Paz, before she could testify in a pending
Federal trial in the Eastern District of Virginia against MS-13.
Send these guys to jail when they come back into this country after
being deported. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the House that it is illegal to
chop off fingers and you will be given more time than this bill will
provide. Murdering 28 people is also already illegal, whether this bill
passes or not.
But this amendment just adds insult to injury. If a child comes into
the country because his parents snuck into the country to work, this
bill, the underlying bill provides for a 10-year mandatory minimum for
a fist -fight. This just adds 5 more years of insult.
I would hope we defeat the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 109-76.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Norwood:
Page 22, line 3, insert the following:

SEC. 116. LISTING OF IMMIGRATION VIOLATORS IN THE NATIONAL
CRIME INFORMATION CENTER DATABASE.

(a) Provision of Information to the NCIC.--Not later than
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security of the
Department of Homeland Security shall provide the National
Crime Information Center of the Department of Justice with
such information as the Director may have on any and all
aliens against whom a final order of removal has been issued,
any and all aliens who have signed a voluntary departure
agreement, and any and all aliens who have overstayed their
visa. Such information shall be provided to the National
Crime Information Center regardless of whether or not the
alien received notice of a final order of removal and even if
the alien has already been removed.
(b) Inclusion of Information in the NCIC Database.--Section
534(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve records of
violations of the immigration laws of the United States,
regardless of whether or not the alien has received notice of
the violation and even if the alien has already been removed;
and''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to require the
Department of Homeland Security within 6 months to get information on a
number of types of criminal illegal aliens into the National Crime
Information Center. This makes sense for law enforcement, it makes
sense if you are going to go after the gang problem, and it even makes
sense to address our illegal immigration problem.
The NCIC is a computerized index of criminal justice information
available to the Federal, State, local law enforcement, and other
criminal justice agencies. It is operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. This information helps apprehend fugitives, locates missing
persons or property, and protects law enforcement officers. All records
in NCIC are protected from unauthorized access.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues, there should be no fear
in using this database to get this vital information into the hands of
law enforcement. It is a good system. It is a tested one.
Under my amendment, information on three types of aliens would be
included in the National Crime Information Center: first, those aliens
with a final order of removal issued against them. These are absconders
who are flagrantly violating our laws.
Recent estimates, remember that word ``estimates,'' recent estimates
say that there are over 400,000 in our country today. Of this number,
approximately 85,000 are criminal aliens. I do not mean jaywalkers
either. I mean murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
Second, there are those who signed a volunteer deportation order.
The third group, a very important group, are those who have
overstayed their visas.
Essentially, we are dealing with those who our government says should
not be here, those who have themselves said they should not be here,
and those who are overstaying their permission to be here.
This first category, visa overstays, is the difference between the
language in my amendment and that of the previous one offered by my
good friend,

[[Page H3153]]

the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who incorporated much of
my language into his good amendment; and I applaud him for that.
Lest my colleagues forget, this final category, those who overstay
their visas, has given us some of the most heinous criminals recently.
The chief planner of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta, overstayed his
visa, along with a number of other hijackers.
Sheik Omar Rahman, the spiritual leader of the World Trade Center
bombers and the plot to attack New York City landmarks, overstayed his
visa, among other immigration violations.
Mahmud Abouhalima entered on a tourist visa in 1985, which expired in
the spring of 1986. He was given permanent residence in 1988 as part of
an amnesty for agriculture workers. There was no evidence, however,
that he was ever an agriculture worker. He made several trips to
Afghanistan where he received combat training. He was implicated as a
lead organizer in the 1993 plots to bomb New York landmarks.
Mohammed Salameh entered on a 6-month tourist visa issued in Jordan
in 1988. He should never have qualified for the visa by law as he fit
the profile of intending immigrant. He rented the truck in the 1993 WTO
bombing.
Eyad Ismoil entered on a student visa in 1989, left school after
three semesters, violating the terms of his visa, and became an illegal
alien. He later drove the World Trade Center van full of explosives.
More facts about visa overstays that might startle folks a little
bit: at least 40 percent of the noncitizens who stay in the United
States illegally, and perhaps more than half, did not sneak across the
border. Visa overstays were described as a ``disturbing and persistent
problem'' in a report by the Justice Department's Inspector General.
Now, here is the punch line. This was all written on November 8,
1998, in the Dallas Morning News, nearly 3 years before the attacks of
9/11, and approximately 6\1/2\ years ago. This visa overstay language
is therefore key to this amendment and key to our safety and security.
This amendment is necessary. This language regarding visa overstays
makes us safer. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has
expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because we have not studied this.
This issue did not come before the committee. We do not know anything
about the accuracy of the data that may be circulated. We do not know
what it is going to cost. And we particularly do not know whether or
not this is a good cost-effective way of providing homeland security.
For example, this will do nothing to prevent an Oklahoma bombing, where
the problem was domestic.
If we are going to spend money in homeland security, we ought to put
it where it is most needed. We have not studied to determine whether
this is the best use of the money or not. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I
would hope we would not pass this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is very kind.
Mr. Chairman, I will tell you the NCIC system works. After 6\1/2\
years, it is overdue time we tried to do something about the visas.
I will take just a minute to thank the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary for a great bill. I appreciate so much his support in
this, as well as the support of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and all their
good work. We are finally, finally trying to do something about this
terrible problem of illegal immigrants.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we defeat the amendment. As I said, it may or
may not, we do not know, be a cost-effective use of the taxpayers'
money.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
The amendment was agreed to
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 109-76.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Norwood:
Page 22, after line 3, insert the following:

SEC. 116. STUDY.

The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall jointly conduct a study on the connection between
illegal immigration and gang membership and activity,
including how many of those arrested nationwide for gang
membership and violence are aliens illegally present in the
United States. The Attorney General and the Secretary shall
report the results of that study to Congress not later than
one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I point to the previous amendment where we talked about
estimates a little bit. Well, this is dealing with estimates. This
amendment would simply require a study conducted jointly by the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice on the
link between illegal aliens and gang membership. Surprisingly, despite
the overwhelming agreement from all parties that the two are linked,
there is no comprehensive report anywhere that we can find on this
topic. It is time for that to change.
Congressional testimony on April 13 of this year produced some
important anecdotal evidence of the need of this sort of data. Before
the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Marsha
Garst offered some statistics in relation to some problems in the
Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. She indicated the gangs there are nearly
75 percent composed of illegal aliens. She also related that a number
of the illegal alien gang members had been previously deported, proving
that we are not doing our job on the borders.
A second witness at the same hearing was Heather MacDonald of the
Manhattan Institute. She has research that is helpful to this subject,
but somewhat out of date. She indicated that a confidential California
Department of Justice study from 1995 said that 60 percent of the
20,000-member 18th Street Gang in Southern California are illegal.
Also, that the leadership of the Colombian Lil' Cycos Gang, who control
some markets in L.A., was about 60 percent illegal in 2002. ICE
officials put the number of illegals among MS-13 members at simply ``a
majority.''
We need to do better than just know ``a majority.'' If you are not
convinced, just listen to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), who is the Subcommittee on Immigration
chairman. He indicated in his statement: ``While there are an estimated
750,000 to 800,000 gang members in the Nation, there are no firm
estimates on how many of these gang members are aliens and how many are
citizens.'' His point should not go unaddressed.
So we again are saying today that our porous borders are a problem
for our citizens. This time it is crime, sometimes deadly in our
neighborhoods and streets. Despite this very clear link between gangs
and illegal aliens, there is not a study that I located anywhere that
addresses this issue.

{time} 1600

I think that it is long past due for that to change.
People say that addicts have to first admit that they have a problem
before they can move on and get help. This study is a good way for us
to finally

[[Page H3154]]

admit that we have a major problem and seek ways then to correct the
problem. I hope that we will not take too long to seek that help, and I
would be happy to assist with a solution, because it is an issue that I
have worked on and been very interested in for a long time.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and help us finally get
the facts about the nationwide scope of what we are dealing with in
terms of illegal aliens and gang membership.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just say, this is interesting timing of the amendment,
because we just passed the Goodlatte amendment, and now we are going to
study, I guess, whether or not we should have passed it because, as the
gentleman from Georgia has indicated, we do not know the link between
illegal aliens and gang membership, and so we have to study it. We just
passed an amendment to add 5 years mandatory minimum to sentences if a
couple of them get into a fist fight. So I guess it is nice to know
whether we should have passed it or not, but I just want to point out
that it is an interesting place to consider this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I will simply say to my
friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that this is not an
amendment that justifies or does not justify the previous amendment.
This is an effort to get the facts on what we already know. If you ride
around at all, you do not have to go very far to determine what the
problem is in this country.
I ask all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote to
help protect this country from illegal immigrants.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, allow me to shock the Members on the
opposite side of the aisle and join with them in support of this
amendment.
Mas vale tarde que nunca. It means, better late than never. And while
my colleague here, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), is
absolutely correct, we have put the cart before the horse, I suppose it
is never too late to try and correct our errors.
I do think that we should have been involved in studies a long time
ago. We are basically forever speculating and coming up with anecdotes
without a basis of facts for our decisions. So I am hopeful that we
will get the support of our colleagues in this Congress so that we can
study.
While this is limited to the link between illegal aliens and gang
membership, we need more studies on gangs, period. We need to find out,
number one, where the young people are coming from. What is it about
gang membership that entices them to want to be a part of that gang?
What are their parents like? Are they the children of those who are
already incarcerated? If we had an opportunity to support them getting
back into school, moving out of neighborhoods, et cetera, what would
happen?
So, again, even though this is a little late in coming, I do support
the amendment, and I ask for an aye vote.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank the
gentlewoman. I hope this will be, and I think it should have bipartisan
support, and I am going to call for a vote, because I believe most of
us will vote for this.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the time, I would hope that the
gentleman would also support the idea of a broader study on gangs,
period, and that we could identify a number of areas to be looked at.
Would the gentleman be interested in that at some point in time?
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, I am
interested in doing anything I know we can do to stop gang violence in
this country. It is time we brought it to an end, and of course, I am
interested in anything about that that might head that off.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Having heard the distinguished views from my friend, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood), I am convinced that the amendment is well taken, however
misplaced in time. We should have considered this before the gentleman
from Roanoke, Virginia, but as my colleague has said, better late than
never.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood) will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 10
printed in House report 109-76.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Waters

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Ms. Waters:
Strike section 102.
Strike section 103.
Strike section 104.
Strike section 105.
Strike section 106.
Strike section 107.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and I have offered an amendment that would strike
all of the mandatory minimum sentences in H.R. 1279, the Gang
Deterrence and Community Protection Act. The mandatory minimum
sentencing requirements found in sections 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and
107 are simply not the answer to gang deterrence.
Mr. Chairman, all of us know that mandatory minimum sentencing has
not worked, and it does have a huge disproportionate impact on
minorities. Just to name a few statistics, African-Americans only
comprise 12 percent of the United States population; however, they
comprise a staggering 58 percent of all prisoners incarcerated under
Federal mandatory minimum sentences. There is something wrong with this
picture.
Mandatory minimums are not even effective in deterring crime. Their
only proven result is in driving up our prison populations, resulting
in overcrowding and the need for the creation of more prisons.
Increasing prison populations is not the solution to the prevention of
crime in our communities, even communities infested with gang crime.
Mr. Chairman, mandatory minimums also impede on the role of our
judges. We need to let judges be judges and ensure that they have the
discretion to sentence criminal defendants in a manner that takes into
account all of the facts and circumstances that are presented before
them. Clearly, this must include an evaluation of any mitigating
circumstances, such as the defendant's childhood experience, especially
if the defendant is a juvenile; the mental state of the defendant; the
role that the defendant played in the commission of the crime; the
mental capacity of the defendant; the crime committed; whether force or
a firearm was used during the commission of the crime; and whether a
victim lost his or her life and was seriously maimed as a result of the
crime. The mandatory minimums under H.R. 1279 would make it impossible
for trial judges to fairly and fully evaluate the cases before them,
because these sections overreach

[[Page H3155]]

into the State court's authority and remove the judge's sentencing
discretion.
Mr. Chairman, to be tough on gangs, we must focus more on gang crime
prevention. We need to implement more effective prevention tactics that
focus on both individuals at risk of joining gangs and on former gang
members at risk of rejoining a gang after being released from prison.
Also, educational and rehabilitation programs for communities with
gangs that have a high crime rate need to be implemented. We should
focus our attention on what works.
I urge all of my colleagues to please support my amendment and to
strike all of the mandatory minimum sentences included in H.R. 1279.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner)
is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment would essentially strip the bill of vital and
necessary weapons that prosecutors and law enforcement need to win the
war against violent gangs. In particular, and I ask that everyone pay
close attention to this, the amendment would eliminate increased
penalties and mandatory minimum penalties for the following crimes:
interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering,
carjacking and illegal gun transfers to drug traffickers or violent
criminals, murder for hire or other felony crimes of violence, violent
crimes in aid of racketeering activity, murder or other violent crimes
committed by drug traffickers and multiple interstate murderers.
These people belong in jail. Just listen to the types of crimes that
the mandatory minimums and enhanced penalties apply to.
When considering this amendment, it is important to recognize just
how much of a problem gangs represent today. Just take the City of
Chicago. The U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald,
testified and described the gang problem in Chicago: ``It is easy to
underestimate the grip that gangs have on some of our cities, but the
sad reality is that their grip on urban life is lethal. First, the
sheer number of gang members is staggering. In Chicago alone, there are
estimated to be 70,000 to 100,000 gang members, compared with about
13,000 Chicago police officers. Several ``super gangs'' dominate: The
Gangster Disciples, the Black Disciples, the Vice Lords, the Black P
Stones, the Mickey Cobras, the Latin Kings, the Spanish Cobras, the
Maniac Latin Disciples and the Satan Disciples. All of these gangs
control large amounts of territory, engage in large-scale drug
trafficking and use gun violence to control their territory and drug
trade.''
Unfortunately, my colleagues ignore the practical reality of this
problem by trying to take away new and valuable tools for law
enforcement and prosecutors such as mandatory minimum penalties.
U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald again explained, ``It is important to
maintain heavy penalties on gang members, particularly higher-echelon
members and those engaging in violence, to deter violent activity and
to leverage cooperation from gang members who are already conditioned
to understand they will do some prison time but often cooperate when
faced with heavier prison time. Cases against gangs proceed most
effectively when the heavy penalties cause key members of the gang to
work with authorities to dismantle the organization. Ultimately, severe
sentencing of gang members results more quickly in greater freedom for
the community victimized by the gangs.''
Heavy penalties mean more cooperation to people on the fringes.
Mandatory minimum penalties and heavier sentences result in more
quickly and greater freedom for the community victimized by the gangs.
This amendment is the anti-community freedom amendment and should be
defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of our subcommittee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind Members of the
House that murders are already illegal. Intentional murder subjects you
to either the death penalty or mandatory life. Racketeering and those
other charges are illegal. The mandatory minimums in the bill apply to
second-offense fist fights, and I guess if you are an illegal
immigrant, you get an additional 5 years mandatory minimum.
If that is not enough, Mr. Chairman, we have already said that, for
those 25 to 29 in the African-American community, 1 out of 8 are
already in jail today. Apparently, that is not enough penalty, and we
need to increase it.
The Sentencing Commission has studied the impact of mandatory minimum
sentences and have found that they not only violate the entire purpose
of the Sentencing Commission, but they are also applied in a racially
discriminatory manner. We also have found, Mr. Chairman, that the Rand
Corporation has studied mandatory minimums and found that it is not a
cost-effective sentencing scheme. They found that compared to a more
intelligent scheme where the more serious criminals get more time and
less serious get less time, mandatory minimums are less effective in
reducing crime. They are also much less effective than drug
rehabilitation for drug penalties. So we have the Rand Corporation
designating mandatory minimums as a waste of the taxpayers' money.
The Judicial Conference of the United States, the Chief Justice of
the United States presiding, has written us a letter saying, not only
that trying juveniles as adults is bad policy but also the mandatory
minimums, and they have maintained opposition to mandatory minimums
since 1953. They write: The reason is manifest. Mandatory minimums
severely distort and damage the Federal sentencing system. Mandatory
minimums undermine the sentencing guideline regime Congress so
carefully established in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 by
preventing the rational development of guidelines that reduce unwanted
disparity and provide proportionality and fairness.

{time} 1615

Mandatory minimums also destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging
charge and fact plea bargains. In fact, the U.S. Sentencing Commission
has documented that mandatory minimums have the opposite of their
intended effect. Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory
minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity.
Mandatory minimums also treat dissimilar offenders in a similar
fashion, although these offenders can be quite different with respect
to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger to society.
Finally, mandatory minimums require the sentencing court to impose
the same sentence on offenders when sound policy and common sense call
for reasonable differences and punishment. Accordingly, we respectfully
request that the expansion of the Federal criminal justice system over
juvenile offenders be seriously reconsidered, and that the mandatory
minimum sentences provision in the bill be removed.
Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what this amendment does, and I would
hope that the amendment would be adopted.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I just wish today that we would hear the
same passion for the victims of gang crimes as we have heard on the
other side for those who commit violent gang crimes. You know, we have
heard a lot about the cost of locking up violent gang criminals. But I
have not heard a whole lot about the cost of leaving them in our
neighborhoods to create more crimes and leave repeated paths of
victims.
We just heard about common sense. Well, let me tell you about common
sense. Common sense is that you are not going to stop these violent
gang criminals by giving them a Popsicle and a hug. You stop them by
getting them off the streets.
Let us make it clear that we do not believe there is any socially
redeeming value for belonging to a violent criminal gang. What
mandatory sentences do is they set out clearly a policy that we say, if
you are going to belong to

[[Page H3156]]

one of these gangs, you take the consequences; that if you commit one
of these gang crimes, you are going to pay a price. You cannot just
roll the dice.
Now, our opponents will tell you it is already illegal to do some of
these acts. They miss the point. Our whole purpose is to keep those
acts from being committed in the first place by getting rid of the gang
networks. They believe, they have argued here the way you do that is by
giving arts and crafts to members of these violent gangs. We just
respectfully disagree.
We believe that the way you do it is by bringing down the criminal
gang networks and the criminal gang leaders. Mandatory sentences do
that by giving those individuals who commit gang crimes a choice. They
can either spend a long time in jail, or they can help us bring down
the networks that are praying on our communities.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject this amendment and will pass the
bill.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
bill, which offers no solution to our Nation's gang violence problem,
and in support of the Waters-Scott amendment which strikes the
mandatory sentences provisions.
Clearly, in many neighborhoods throughout our country, we have a gang
violence problem. Yet dramatically increasing prison terms and failing
to fund proven strategies to reduce youth violence is exactly what H.R.
1279 does.
Violence in gangs is a critical problem, persistent among low-income
and minority communities. Today we see that 95 percent of the largest
cities and 88 percent of the smaller cities are confronted with gang-
related crimes. More and more younger kids are joining gangs. But no
value of hope is given to these children seeking a way out of the gang
activity. We must face this reality, rather than hide from it.
It seems to me that the only solution being offered by this
legislation to our juveniles involved in gangs is locking them into a
life path where there is no way out. Whatever happened to gang
prevention programs, to the funding desperately needed for delinquency
and intervention programs?
If we want to deter gang violence and protect our communities, we
need to focus on effective and comprehensive solutions to address the
root causes of youth violence, not simply punitive actions.
Mr. Chairman, passing this bill will do nothing to stem the tide of
gang violence throughout this country. What this bill will do is worsen
our youth's violent behavior by enslaving our youngsters into prison as
an answer to one of this Nation's most critical problems, and that is
no solution at all. I urge my colleagues to support the Waters-Scott
amendment and to oppose the underlying bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I am a cop. I wear a congressional pin,
but I always will live and breathe and think like a cop.
I have worked the streets for 33 years. Up until January 3 of this
year I was a police officer. In the early 1990s, gangs were a huge
problem in this country; and we worked hard and passed local tough laws
to address the gang issue. And we had success. The crackdown by cops
across the Nation in the early 1990s did break the backs of gang
activity. And today we need tough laws to continue fighting gang
violence and the resurgence of gang activity.
These gangs today are more violent. They are committing murders,
rapes, and robberies. Cops need tough laws to help them. They need to
know that local governments, State governments, and the Federal
Government is behind them with tough laws to help them break the backs
of gangs.
A few years ago I lost a good friend, an officer who worked in the
Seattle area. He stopped his police car, opened his car door, stood by
the front of his police car, and was approached by three gang members.
The job that night, the assignment that night by these gang bangers,
kill a cop. And they did. They fired the bullet into the cop's head,
and he died.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and protect the
lives of citizens of this great country.
Mr. Chairman, I am a cop. I wear a Congressional pin, but I will
always think like a cop, live and breathe as a cop.
I have chased these gangs, I have worked to shut down these groups
and these were not innocent children. I absolutely believe in
protecting our children and giving them a chance, teaching them right
from wrong and allowing them to make mistakes. I believe in doing that
while they are young. We should be educating our children, teaching
them responsibility and raising them to be better men and women than we
are.
But I believe once that foundation has been laid, they are
responsible for their actions. It is a harsh world and I have seen it
first hand. I have watched young women turn to prostitution. I have
picked them up from their beats and taken them to shelters and tried to
help them find a way out of that life. I've had success too. But
ultimately, they are responsible for themselves and their choices. I am
a compassionate man, but I firmly believe that respect stems from
responsibility. And no one--not you, me, not any of these youths in
gangs are without responsibility.
The members of these gangs consciously choose to act out against
their communities. They dispense the violence; no one forces them to do
so. That type of influence is like a cancer. These gangs seep into
young men and women and corrupt them. They erode the good of our
neighborhoods and destroy lives. Our communities need to be safe. In
order to be safe, we need to stop this cycle before it begins.
Mandatory minimums enforce that gang members and their theft,
prostitution, weapons and drugs will not be tolerated. They will be
dealt with to the fullest extend of the law.
In May of 2001, Des Moines patrol officer Steve Underwood was shot to
death and killed after approaching a car with four gang members on a
late-night watch along Pacific Highway South. Shot to death simply in
approaching the car, this is what we have progressed to.
Last night I spoke with King County's Gang Detective, Sheila Hatch.
In the course of our conversation, she raised mandatory minimums. She
said that the only way for our prosecutors to effectively go after gang
leaders when the cops manage to bring them down is with a strong
penalty. Our laws need to be effective to stop and make them think of
consequence before they commit a crime. The cost of their crime sprees
should not be simply an afterthought.
Mr. Chairman, we need mandatory minimums. I am telling you that first
hand, as someone who worked on the streets to stop gangs. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' against the Waters-Scott amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if you kill a police officer you
are going to get death or life without parole. If you make any murder
in the Federal system you are looking at life. If you are talking about
the impact of this bill, it is a 10-year mandatory minimum for second-
offense fist fights.
We have been asked where our compassion is for the victims. We have
got mandatory minimums where you already know that it violates common
sense, it wastes the taxpayers money, it fails to do anything about
reducing crime. That is what the studies have shown. Trying juveniles
as adults we know increases crime.
That is a good question. Where is your compassion for the victims
when you are actually increasing crime? We know what works to reduce
crime. We know what polls well, and what we need to do is have some
compassion for common sense and actually enact those provisions that
will reduce crime.
We know that prevention and early intervention work. You know, you
can make jokes about it; but we know what works and we know what polls
well. If we are going to show some compassion for our victims, we ought
to do something to actually reduce crime.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for me to say on behalf of most
of the Members, if not all of the Members of the Congress of the United
States of America, we are all against crime. We do not support
criminals. We are indeed passionate about victims. We want hard-core
criminals off the streets.
What we do not support is using this terrible issue to get your law
and order

[[Page H3157]]

credentials on. We do not want you using this issue on the backs of
young people who may be victims of gangs rather than criminals
themselves.
Let me just say this: we are against mandatory minimum sentencing
because it takes away the discretion of the judge. The judge may give
more time, given all of the facts. And, yes, they may give less time,
given all of the facts.
We need to let judges be judges. We cannot sit here in the Congress
of the United States and continue to take away the ability of judges to
make decisions. So I stand here today with this amendment to say, let
the judges make the decision.
You do not know if there is a kid who happens to live in a
neighborhood that is infested with gang members and they must pretend
to be in the gang in order to survive. Do you want that kid caught up
in a situation where they are going to be given mandatory minimum
sentencing, when they did not have an opportunity to have a judge
understand what the extenuating circumstances were?
I do not think that is good legislating, nor is it good public
policy. I would ask my colleagues to please support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters) has expired.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) have any more time, because I wish to make a statement
on this bill prior to the close of debate.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield one of those
minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this. I am not going to
allow my amendment to get caught up in the politics of the day. I know
that there are people who are just salivating for this amendment to
remain on the floor so they can catch Democrats voting for something
that they will use in their campaigns.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Waters/Scott Amendment which strikes out all mandatory minimums in H.R.
1279. The mandatory minimums proscribed in this legislation will only
result in many young people serving long sentences, at least ten years,
based on the circumstances of rather than the crime itself. Perhaps it
is no surprise that mandatory minimums have come under criticism for
being discriminatory in nature.
The enormous monetary and human costs associated with incarceration
simply outweigh the supposed benefits of the proposed legislation. It
is well known that incarceration costs American taxpayers millions of
dollars each year, what is not as widely known is that it also costs
millions to reintegrate those released from prison back into society.
Additionally, as suggested in the recent Booker decision, judges often
refuse to hand down mandatory minimums if they feel that they are
draconian. With the proposed changes, we may even see juries unwilling
to convict an obviously guilty defendant if they know that doing so
will result in ten years' imprisonment. Creating laws that are likely
to go un-enforced will not foster faith in the criminal justice system
or help take down gangs.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waters/Scott
amendment to H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection
Act of 2005. If the Waters/Scott amendment is defeated I would urge my
colleagues to oppose the underlying bill because it broadens the
definition of gangs and metes out even harsher punishments for offenses
that already have very long sentences.
Mr. Chairman, the Scott/Waters amendment strikes those sections of
the bill which set mandatory minimum sentences. I agree with the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, (NAACP) who
propose that by increasing the number of crimes that have mandatory
minimum sentences, and stiffening those sentences, the bill will
exacerbate the already troubling and offensive racial disparities in
the criminal justice system.
According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, such ``sentences
are bad regardless of the crime because they prevent judges from making
distinctions between defendants and sentencing them according to their
culpability. Instead, mandatory minimums impose one-size-fits-all
sentencing, which guarantees injustices''
In my district the US Virgin Islands we are in the midst of gang
violence amongst our young males. Over the years, through various
preventative programs within our law enforcement community and amongst
private organizations, we have seen a difference in behavior within our
teen population as it pertains to conflict resolution. Prevention is
truly the best cure in this situation not inflexible mandatory minimum
sentences
I urge my colleagues to support the Waters/Scott amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the
Waters amendment. Terrorism is solved with intelligence, prevention not
simple mandatory minimums.
Since the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug users,
the Federal Bureau of Prisons budget increased by more than 2,016
percent, from two hundred twenty million dollars in 1986 to about four
billion four hundred thirty seven million dollars in 2004.
African Americans comprise 12 percent of the United States
population, 15 percent of drug users, 17 percent of cocaine users, but
33 percent of all Federal drug convictions and 57 percent of Federal
cocaine convictions.
In 1986, before the mandatory minimums for crack cocaine offenses
became effective, the average Federal offense for African Americans was
11 percent higher than whites. Following the implementation of
mandatory drug sentencing laws, the average drug offense sentence for
African Americans was 49 percent higher than whites.
Largely as a result of mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, there
are now more than 2,100,000 persons in prison and almost 70 percent of
the people behind bars in America are persons of color. African
Americans made up 40 percent of the Federal prison population in
August, 2003, up from 31 percent in 1986 before Federal mandatory
minimums were enacted.
As a result of mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, particularly
with respect to drug crimes, in 2001, the average Federal drug
trafficking conviction was 72.7 months while the average Federal
manslaughter sentence was 34.3 months the average assault sentence 37.7
months, and the average sexual abuse sentence 65.2 months.
In 1999, African Americans constituted 13 percent of drug users. In
that same year, African Americans constituted 35 percent of drug
arrests, 53 percent of drug convictions, and 58 percent of those in
prison for drug Federal mandatory minimum sentences make African
Americans more likely to be incarcerated and for longer periods than
their white counterparts.
In the year 2000, 84.7 percent of crack cocaine cases were brought
against African Americans even though, in that year, African Americans
comprised only about 26.6 percent of crack users. Only 5.6 percent of
crack cases that year were brought against Caucasians even they
constituted 64.4 percent of crack users.
In the 20 years from 1981 to 2001, the sentenced portion of the
Federal prison population grew from about 20,000 in 1981 to about
115,000 prisoners. During that same period, the percentage of drug
offenders in Federal prison grew from 25 percent to almost 60 percent.
Mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes are the largest drivers of
expanding prison populations.
Due to harsh sentencing guidelines, such as the `three-strikes,
you're out, provision', a disproportionate number of young black and
Hispanic men are likely to be imprisoned for life under scenarios in
which they are guilty of little more than a history of untreated
addiction and several prior drug-related offenses . . . States will
absorb the staggering cost of not only constructing additional prisons
to accommodate increasing numbers of prisoners who will never be
released but also warehousing them into old age.
We all know and are stunned by the staggering statistic cited in the
September 2002 issue of the journal Racial Issues in Higher Education,
that, at that time, there were more African American males in prison
than in college. Mandatory minimums are driving this growth in federal
prison populations.
Mandatory minimum drug sentences are also resulting in the
disproportionate lengthy incarceration of young African American women.
From 1986 (the year mandatory sentencing was enacted) to 1996, the
number of women sentenced to state prison for drug crimes increased ten
fold and has been the main element in the overall increase in the
imprisonment of women. Ninety five percent of female arrests from 1985
to 1996 were drug related and over 80% of female prison inmates are
incarcerated as a result of their association with abusive boyfriends.
Terrorism requires a more comprehensive approach along with major
immigration reform not just mandatory minimums.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.

[[Page H3158]]

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 7 offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), amendment No. 9 offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 266,
noes 159, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 165]

AYES--266

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schiff
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--159

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Emanuel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--8

Berkley
Bishop (UT)
Hastings (FL)
Larson (CT)
Millender-McDonald
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1649

Messrs. SWEENEY, TIERNEY, CARNAHAN, UPTON, DOYLE and Mrs. MALONEY
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Messrs. CASE, BISHOP of New York, STRICKLAND and
INGLIS of South Carolina changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Norwood

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 395,
noes 31, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 166]

AYES--395

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris

[[Page H3159]]

Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--31

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldwin
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Dingell
Filner
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Holt
Honda
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Rangel
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Serrano
Solis
Stark

NOT VOTING--7

Berkley
Hastings (FL)
Larson (CT)
Millender-McDonald
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1658

Mr. PALLONE and Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 1700

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). There being no further amendments,
the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Accordingly, under the rule, the Committee
rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Rehberg) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 268, he reported
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. TIERNEY. I am in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Tierney moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1279 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 22, after line 3, insert the following:

SEC. 116. PROHIBITION OF PROFITEERING.

(a) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 1037. War profiteering and fraud relating to military
action, relief, and reconstruction efforts in Iraq

``(a) Prohibition.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever, in any matter involving a
contract or the provision of goods or services, directly or
indirectly, in connection with the war, military action, or
relief or reconstruction activities in Iraq, knowingly and
willfully--
``(A) executes or attempts to execute a scheme or artifice
to defraud the United States or Iraq;
``(B) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact;
``(C) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statements or representations, or makes or uses any
materially false writing or document knowing the same to
contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry; or
``(D) materially overvalues any good or service with the
specific intent to excessively profit from the war, military
action, or relief or reconstruction activities in Iraq;

shall be fined under paragraph (2), imprisoned not more than
20 years, or both.
``(2) Fine.--A person convicted of an offense under
paragraph (1) may be fined the greater of--
``(A) $1,000,000; or
``(B) if such person derives profits or other proceeds from
the offense, not more than twice the gross profits or other
proceeds.
``(b) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is
extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under
this section.
``(c) Venue.--A prosecution for an offense under this
section may be brought--
``(1) as authorized by chapter 211 of this title;
``(2) in any district where any act in furtherance of the
offense took place; or
``(3) in any district where any party to the contract or
provider of goods or services is located.''.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``1037. War profiteering and fraud relating to military action, relief,
and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.''.

(b) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a)(2)(B) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 1030'' and
inserting ``1030, or 1037''.
(c) Money Laundering.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting the following:
``, section 1037 (relating to war profiteering and fraud
relating to military action, relief, and reconstruction
efforts in Iraq),'' after ``liquidating agent of financial
institution),''.

Mr. TIERNEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit is simple and
straightforward and deserves the support of every Member of this body.
It would amend the criminal code to prohibit defrauding the government
in connection with the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
My motion would make it clear that these outrageous and unpatriotic
activities would be subject to prison time and monetary penalties.
Every single

[[Page H3160]]

dollar that is wasted because of corporate fraud or abuse in Iraq is
one less dollar that can go to protect our troops, one less dollar for
body armor, one less dollar for protective equipment that can save
lives.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that, today, in Iraq, taxpayer
funds are being routinely wasted by organized corporate criminals. The
American taxpayer is being defrauded by a system of distributing funds
that is totally unaccountable. This not only demeans and cheapens the
sacrifices that our military and civilian personnel are making in Iraq,
it endangers their lives.
Mr. Speaker, just last week, the House spent another $82 billion of
taxpayer funds on the war. The cost of the war had already been over
$200 billion. We also learned this week that the Pentagon auditors
found that $212 million was paid to Kuwaiti and Turkish subcontractors
for fuel the Pentagon auditors concluded was exorbitantly priced.
Halliburton passed these payments onto the taxpayer.
That may be just the tip of the iceberg, as billions of dollars are
being expended in Iraq with precious little accountability. While there
are fraud statutes to protect against wasted tax dollars at home, none
expressly prohibit war profiteering, and none expressly confer
extraterritorial jurisdiction overseas, as my motion would do.
Against this backdrop, it is imperative that this Congress send a
strong signal that we will not tolerate taxpayer rip-offs at the
expense of our troops. I offer this amendment now because this bill
before us is open ended as a crime bill. It not only deals with gangs
but it amends the criminal laws on matters concerning hearsay, venues,
statute of limitations and sentencing. It also authorizes new grants
and databases, among other things. If we are going to do all of this,
it certainly is appropriate that we also amend the criminal laws to
combat blatant contract fraud in Iraq to protect our brave troops.
When concerns about wartime fraud were raised during World War II,
President Roosevelt declared it was our duty to ensure that a few do
not gain from the sacrifices of the many. Then, as now, our government
cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for reconstruction
efforts that allow so many others to unfairly profit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this commonsense motion to
recommit.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
I thought I had heard everything this morning, Mr. Speaker, when, in
the debate, we heard the opponents of this bill say that they felt that
they could fight violent gang crime better by using arts and crafts
than they could by locking up violent criminals, but I am shocked now
that they are even bringing in Iraq.
If you look, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice, I am sure, is
going to investigate the matters that are in this motion to recommit.
There has not been a shred of evidence or testimony in any subcommittee
or full committee about this bill related to anything in this motion to
recommit. We have not heard a single discussion on it on the floor
today. We have heard one poison pill after another to try to stop us
from going after violent criminal gangs. There have even been
amendments to try to offer loans to gang members, to give housing to
violent gang members.
Mr. Speaker, it is time we stopped playing games with this bill and
we pass it and go on to try to deal with these violent gangs. I want to
remind the House that the Fraternal Order of Police, the National
Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association,
the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Law Enforcement Alliance of
America, National Troopers Coalition, Federal Criminal Investigators
Association, California Gang Investigators Association, National Latino
Peace Officers Association, the New Orleans District Attorney, the Los
Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, and 63 chiefs of major police departments
around the country support the bill as it is. I hope we will defeat the
motion to recommit and pass H.R. 1279.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198,
noes 227, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 167]

AYES--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 (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Leach
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)
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
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--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
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
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

[[Page H3161]]

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)

NOT VOTING--8

Berkley
Hastings (FL)
Larson (CT)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1725

Mr. GILLMOR changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 279,
nays 144, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 168]

YEAS--279

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Watson
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--144

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hensarling
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hostettler
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Michaud
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pitts
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Sherman
Sherwood
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--10

Berkley
Evans
Feeney
Hastings (FL)
Larson (CT)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1735

Mr. SNYDER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________