[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 148 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10053-H10056]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1751, SECURE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND
COURT PROTECTION ACT of 2005
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 540 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 540
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1751) to amend title 18, United States Code,
to protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their
family members, and for other purposes. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this
resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 540 is a structured rule which provides
1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended
by the Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill shall be
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall
be considered as read. It waives all points of order against the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
{time} 1130
It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules
Committee report accompanying this resolution. It provides that the
amendments made in order may be offered only by a Member designated in
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent. It shall not be subject to amendment or a
demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of
the Whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments printed
in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 540
and the underlying bill, H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and
Court Protection Act of 2005.
First, I want to extend my gratitude to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary. I also
would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the
author of this important piece of legislation.
As I previously noted in my opening statement for the rule on H.R.
420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005, this past month has
ushered in the passage of very meaningful and very significant
legislation to reform and strengthen our courts both procedurally and
substantively. Today we have an opportunity to strengthen our courts in
a more literal sense by protecting them against a rising tide of
violence that has harmed and claimed the lives of innocent individuals
charged with enforcing and upholding our laws.
It was only a number of months ago that tragedy struck the Fulton
County courthouse in Atlanta, my home State of Georgia. There, as most
of America watched and sorrowfully remember, on March 13 a cold-blooded
killer took the lives of four innocent people, forever robbing their
families and depriving our legal system of the distinguished service of
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes, age 64; his court
reporter, Julie Anne Brandau, age 46; Fulton County Sheriff Deputy Hoyt
Teasley, age 43; and Federal agent David Wilhelm, age 40.
Mr. Speaker, law and order, not violence, should permeate our courts.
Accordingly, H.R. 1751 would take important steps to deter and punish
those who would exact revenge because they were caught in a criminal
activity.
First, this bill will further punish any individual who would seek to
influence, impede, or retaliate against a judge, a prosecutor, a law
enforcement officer, or their families by increasing the penalties and
providing new mandatory minimums such as 30-years-to-life mandatory
minimum for kidnapping.
Additionally, each and every day men and women in law enforcement and
public safety across this country proudly don their uniforms, fully
recognizing that they represent their cities, States and their country;
and they
[[Page H10054]]
proudly assume a substantial amount of personal risk to do so.
Therefore, H.R. 1751 would establish as a new category of criminal
offense the killing, the attempted killing, or conspiracy to kill any
public safety officer for a federally funded public agency. This
legislation defines ``public safety officer'' as an employee or officer
of the judiciary, a firefighter, a law enforcement officer, or any
other State or local employee.
This bill would also crack down on the disclosure on the Internet of
personal information of judges, court personnel, law enforcement and
safety officers, jurors, and witnesses.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to emphasize H.R. 1751's protections
for jurors, witnesses, victims, and informants. The reality is that
criminals or their associates can have the means to intimidate victims,
and especially witnesses, essentially muscling them out of the
courtroom. Accordingly, this bill goes a long way to ensuring the
safety of witnesses and victims in order to keep their testimony in the
court and keep the criminals behind bars.
This legislation expands the current framework between the United
States Marshals Service and the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts to facilitate consultation and cooperation in the
development of security standards and requirements for our courthouses.
It prohibits the possession of a dangerous weapon, including a firearm,
in a Federal court facility; and it creates opportunities for State
courts to improve security through discretionary Byrne grants.
Mr. Speaker, in recent debates, some of my colleagues have
unfortunately called into question the importance of legal reform in
this country to the point of insinuating that such reforms are not
worth this House's time for consideration.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the judicial branch affects the lives of every
single American and almost every aspect of American life from
conception to natural death, and sometimes even after death. Therefore,
I think legal reform has and will continue to be a very appropriate
matter for consideration and a good use of this Congress' time,
especially when we are dealing with the safety of those men and women
involved with our all-important third branch of government.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of this rule.
I ask my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the rule, H. Res. 540, will allow the House to take up
legislation to protect Federal judges, court employees, safety
officers, jurors, and witnesses.
Unfortunately, we are all aware of the tragic violence committed
against judges and their families this year. In one case this past
February, Judge Joan Lefkow, a Federal judge from Chicago, returned
home to find her husband and her mother murdered. We later learned it
had been a retaliation for a earlier court ruling. It is hard to
comprehend such a senseless loss.
Clearly, the additional steps we are taking today are important to
protect judges and their family members. H.R. 1751, the Secure Access
to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005, increases the penalty for
assaulting, kidnapping or murdering a Federal judge, other public
officials, and their immediate family members. Further, the bill
extends these protections to jurors and witnesses.
For our judicial system to function, the authority and safety of our
Federal judges must be ensured. Judges, as well as jurors, should know
they are free to make unbiased and sound decisions based on the facts
and the rule of law and not on the fear that they may face retaliation
for a decision they hand down.
It is equally important witnesses know they will also be secure when
testifying. They must know that it is safe to do the right thing and
testify before a court of law. For this reason, I appreciate that the
Committee on the Judiciary included grants to assist States in
operating the witness protection programs.
However, I do have some significant reservations about this
legislation. Included in H.R. 1751 are over a dozen new mandatory
minimum penalties.
Mr. Speaker, we must protect our judges from harm without impeding
their judicial independence. It is the judges and juries who have the
facts of each case before them, not Congress. And it is judges and
juries who should be determining the proper and appropriate punishment.
Therefore, it should not surprise Members that the Judicial
Conference of the United States, the body Congress turns to for
nonpartisan recommendations on our Federal judiciary, has expressed a
deep opposition to mandatory minimums on more than a dozen occasions in
its communications to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, mandatory minimums simply do not work. Rather, they tie
the hands of our judges, not allowing them to fit the best punishment
to the crime.
I look forward to the debate on these amendments and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules
Committee.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
the underlying legislation. I want to congratulate my friend from
Georgia and my friend from California for their management of this
issue.
I would like to say that the rule itself provides by a 2-1 ratio more
amendments offered by Democrats than Republicans. Not every single
amendment was made in order, as I see my friend, Mrs. McCarthy, here. I
will say, as we regularly hear people say that the amendments the
Democrats proposed are not given an opportunity to be heard on the
floor, by a 2-1 margin, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing amendments made in
order by Democrats over Republicans.
Specifically to the concern I know will be raised by the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), we frankly upstairs had been under the
impression that the language that she and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) had proceeded through consideration, and I was wrong on
that. I had gotten some incorrect information.
But I have talked with staff members of the Judiciary Committee; and
I have an assurance, and while I know this amendment will not be made
in order today, when it comes to looking at background checks and the
history of individuals, this is a priority that the committee will put
forward. They have assured me that they will proceed with hearings on
this issue. I would like to say to my friend from New York who will
raise concerns about this that is a priority that we have and we hope
very much to address it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the
legislation itself. I would like to begin by congratulating Chairman
Sensenbrenner and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who as a
former judge is obviously concerned about the threats that have been
out there for his former colleagues. I believe it is very important,
when we think about the importance of the rule of law, which is
absolutely essential, absolutely essential for the success of liberty,
ensuring the safety of these judges who have continued to face threats,
is very, very important for us to do.
Last night in the Rules Committee, our colleague from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) referred to his father who was a judge, and as we all know,
former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He talked about
those threats. He told me repeatedly about the threats that existed.
This legislation, I believe, that Mr. Gohmert has put together will go
a long way towards addressing that concern.
I would like to talk about a very important provision that is
included in this bill that enjoys strong bipartisan support. One of the
serious problems with which we are all dealing is the issue of illegal
immigration and the
[[Page H10055]]
problem we have of people who are in this country. We know 98 percent
of them are here to simply feed their families, but we know there are
people here in this country who perpetrate crime against our fellow
citizens. We know there continues to be the existence of a threat that
a terrorist could come here. We know that Mohammed Atta, one of those
who flew a plane into the World Trade Center Tower on September 11,
2001, was, in fact, here illegally. So as we look at the issue of
illegal immigration, focusing on criminals and potential terrorists is
a very high priority.
One of the worst days for law enforcement in the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department was April 29, 2002. That is 3\1/2\ years ago. On
that day, Deputy Sheriff David March was on patrol. He pulled over for
a traffic violation an individual who ended up putting a gun to Deputy
March's head and brutally killing him.
{time} 1145
The alleged killer, Armando Garcia, fled to Mexico, and it has been
3\1/2\ years, and we have not resolved that case.
Within just a few weeks of that April 29 killing in 2002, upstairs in
the Rules Committee I convened a meeting of my colleagues, Buck McKeon,
who represented the March family; Ken Calvert, who was very involved in
this issue and concerned about it. On the other side of the aisle,
Howard Berman and Adam Schiff, and we also had at that meeting, Mr.
Speaker, representatives from the Mexican Embassy's judicial department
within the embassy here; and we also had representatives from our
Department of Justice.
Now, our concern has been a terrible provision that exists in Mexican
law. It is actually constitutional, saying that the Mexican Government
refuses to extradite a criminal who potentially could face the death
penalty, and this is something that has existed for a long period of
time. Something that was very unfortunate was that in September of
2001, the Mexican Supreme Court took steps to say that they refused to
extradite an alleged criminal to a country or a state or a jurisdiction
that had life imprisonment as the punishment because they considered
that to be cruel and unusual punishment.
Mr. Speaker, it is horrible that they have that policy, and we need
to do everything we can to change that policy. We need to encourage the
Mexican Government to change that policy. Why? This does not have to do
with something that took place in their country. It has to do with a
crime perpetrated on U.S. soil. So I believe the Mexican Government
should, in fact, extradite an alleged criminal who has perpetrated a
crime here in the United States to face the punishment in the
jurisdiction where the crime was perpetrated.
So what has happened here, Mr. Speaker, is that we want to ensure
that we never see happen again what happened on April 29, 2002. And I
should add that is not the only instance. We all know of many other
instances where law enforcement officers have been killed and people
have fled the country. But this case has become a very prominent one.
So I was approached by Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, and I was
joined by my colleague Mr. Schiff, who serves on the Judiciary
Committee; and we were asked to introduce legislation that would make
it a Federal crime to kill a law enforcement officer and flee the
country. We spent a great deal of time working with a wide range of
organizations, and we have put together a package which I believe can
allow us to do that without impinging on the local jurisdiction that we
believe district attorneys should have in dealing with this issue. It
does not in any way diminish the level of punishment. But what it does
do, Mr. Speaker, is it puts the full force of the Federal Government
behind an effort to ensure that we do not have happen again what
happened on April 29 of 2002.
One of the things that I believe is important is to recognize that
there are families that have suffered, and I have had the opportunity,
through Sheriff Baca and through others, to get to know the family
members of Deputy Sheriff David March. So, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3900 is
the legislation that Adam Schiff and I introduced, and it is included
as part of this very important court security measure that Mr. Gohmert
has offered, and I would like to name the provisions that are included
calling for making it a Federal crime to kill a law enforcement officer
in the name of Deputy Sheriff David March. And I spoke with Sheriff Lee
Baca this morning about that, and I really feel that we are doing this
in the name of David March to keep the memory of his life alive, the
memory alive so that we can send a signal that we are not going to
tolerate this kind of act in the future.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have here, again, a very important measure
included in critical must-pass legislation, and I hope that my
colleagues will join in providing bipartisan support for this measure.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
I am very happy to hear from my colleague from California explaining
the move last night on not allowing my amendment to be put forth; and I
hope that, working with him and certainly Mr. Sensenbrenner on the
Judiciary Committee, we can move this bill forward.
H.R. 1751 goes to great lengths to punish those who commit violence
in our courthouses, and rightly so. However, this bill falls short when
it comes to preventative measures that would stop these senseless
attacks from happening in the first place.
As was mentioned, last night I offered such an amendment in the Rules
Committee. It would automate the court records into the National
Institute Background Check System so recently convicted individuals
could not buy a gun. The reason we want to do that, basically, is if a
person is convicted and still not going straight to jail to prevent
them from going out and buying a gun and coming back and doing harm,
whether it is to a judge, a family, or a court officer.
Many State courts fail to enter this data into the NICS System in a
timely manner, if at all. For example, the subject of a restraining
order stemming from spousal abuse can leave the courthouse, go to a gun
store, make a purchase, and seek revenge on the court officers.
My amendment would require that court rulings be immediately entered
into the NICS System. It would provide grants to State courts that do
not have the resources to comply. But my amendment was the only
amendment not to be accepted by the Rules Committee, and we heard that
wrong information had been given to Mr. Dreier, and I accept that.
Those things happen.
All of us here want to save lives. I mean, that is what we want to
do. We want to protect our men and women in uniform. We want to protect
our court officers, our judges. This amendment certainly could have
helped that. It would have made a good bill, in my opinion, a better
bill.
So with that I hope that we will be here down the road soon, be able
to offer my full bill because, again, this does not infringe on second
amendment rights. It is there to protect people. It is there to save
lives, and that is my goal.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close in celebration of the
men and women who put their lives on the line every day, whether by
working the beat, extinguishing a four-alarm fire, or ensuring equal
justice under the law by means of the gavel.
As I mentioned earlier, when these individuals put on their uniforms,
they become representatives of the community in service of the
community. They are not enforcing their own will; but they are, rather,
seeking guidance from and working to uphold the laws of the land.
Mr. Speaker, while there are some individuals who are occasionally
accused of abusing their power, the vast majority, the vast majority,
of these civil servants are only doing their job admirably; and,
therefore, there is absolutely no justification for an accused or
guilty individual to ever attach their anger to or seek revenge against
these individuals who are only doing their duty.
[[Page H10056]]
Unfortunately, the increase of violent activities against judges, and
we talked about that here during this hour, court officers, witnesses,
victims, and law enforcement has made this bill not only necessary but
also a top priority in the preservation of our system of law and
justice.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the discussion of H.R. 1751 and the
numerous amendments this rule has made in order. As always, I urge my
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________