[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 148 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10090-H10108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       SECURE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND COURT PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). Pursuant to House Resolution 
540 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. 1751.

                              {time}  1610


                     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. 1751) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect judges, 
prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their family members, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to 
Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005.
  Violent attacks and intimidation against courthouse personnel and law 
enforcement officers present a threat to the integrity of the justice 
system that Congress has a duty to confront. The murder of family 
members of United States District Judge Joan Lefkow, the brutal 
slayings of Judge Rowland Barnes, his court reporter, his deputy 
sheriff, and a Federal officer in Atlanta, and the cold-blooded 
shootings outside the Tyler, Texas, courthouse all underscore the need 
to provide better protection for judges, courthouse personnel, 
witnesses, law enforcement and their family members.
  This bill is an important bipartisan measure introduced by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner). It will help address the problem of violence in and around our 
Nation's courthouses.
  Statistics show that aggravated assaults against police officers are 
a serious national problem. According to the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, 52 law enforcement officers were killed in the United 
States in 2002 and 56 were killed in 2001. From 1994 through 2003 a 
total of 616 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the 
line of duty. Approximately 100 of these officers were murdered after 
being entrapped or ambushed by their killers. These attacks are simply 
unacceptable.
  The lives of judicial personnel are also at great risk. According to 
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Federal judges 
receive nearly 700 threats a year and several Federal judges require 
security personnel to protect them and their families from terrorist 
associates, violent gangs, drug organizations and disgruntled 
litigants. The intimidation of judges directly assaults the impartial 
administration of justice our Constitution demands.
  Court witnesses are also at risk. Threats and intimidation toward 
witnesses continue to grow, particularly at the State and local level. 
In 1996, a witness intimidation study by the Justice Department 
included that witness intimidation is a pervasive and insidious 
problem. No part of the country is spared and no witness can feel 
entirely free or safe.
  Prosecutors interviewed in this study estimated that witness 
intimidation

[[Page H10091]]

occurs in 75 to 100 percent of the violent crimes committed in some 
gang-dominated neighborhoods.
  This bill passed the Committee on the Judiciary by an overwhelming 
vote of 26-5. The legislation enhances criminal penalties for assaults 
and the killing of Federal, State and local judges, witnesses, law 
enforcement officers, courthouse personnel and their family members.

                              {time}  1615

  It provides grants to State and local courts to improve security 
services and improves the ability of the United States Marshals to 
protect the Federal judiciary.
  The bill also prohibits public disclosure, on the Internet and other 
public sources, of personal information about judges, law enforcement, 
victims and witnesses to protect Federal judges and prosecutors from 
organized efforts to harass and intimidate them through false filings 
of liens and other encumbrances against their property and improves 
coordination between the marshals and the Federal judges.
  The bill also contains vital security measures for Federal 
prosecutors handling dangerous trials against terrorists, drug 
organizations, and other organized crime figures.
  Finally, the bill incorporates key provisions of the Peace Officer 
Justice Act, legislation introduced by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier), to bring justice to those who murder law enforcement 
personnel and flee to foreign nations to escape prosecution and justice 
in this country.
  The bill is supported by those on the front lines of our criminal 
justice system and is backed by the Conference of Chief Justices and 
the Conference of State Court Administrators; the Federal Bar 
Association; the Federal Criminal Investigators Association; and the 
Fraternal Order of Police; the National Association of Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys; the International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO; the 
Major County Sheriffs' Association; the National Law Enforcement 
Council; the National Sheriffs' Association; the National Troopers 
Coalition; the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement 
Administrators; and the American Federation of State, County and 
Municipal Employees.
  When judges, prosecutors, law enforcement and courthouse personnel 
speak in a clear and unanimous voice, we have a duty to listen and to 
act to give their members the tools and resources necessary for their 
protection.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has an obligation to ensure that America's 
courts and the brave men and women of law enforcement render justice 
without fear of assault or retaliation. Judges, witnesses, courthouse 
personnel, and law enforcement officers must operate without fear in 
order to administer the law without bias.
  I urge my colleagues to strengthen the integrity of America's justice 
system and the security of court and law enforcement personnel by 
supporting this vital and bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  It is, I think, a very clear statement to make that we have faced 
extensive violence in our courts in recent times. The problem of 
violence and threats against judges, court officials, employees, 
witnesses, and victims is not a new one, but one that is growing 
rapidly.
  Recent events, including the killing of a Fulton County judge and 
other court personnel in Atlanta, the murders of United States district 
judge Joan Lefkow's family members outside Chicago, Illinois, and the 
murders immediately outside the Tyler, Texas, courthouse have 
underscored the increasing significance of the problem.
  According to the Administrative Office of United States Courts, there 
are almost 700 threats a year made against Federal judges; and in 
numerous cases, Federal judges have had security details assigned to 
them for fear of attack by members of violent gangs, drug organizations 
and disgruntled litigants.
  With such tragic incidents, Mr. Chairman, we are in collaboration, if 
you will, on H.R. 1751, at least the premise, the Secure Access to 
Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005.
  I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking 
member, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the 
chairman, for their collaborative efforts, and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gohmert), my colleague, a former judge, and I guess one would say 
once a judge always a judge, who has taken the leadership on this 
issue.
  None of us would step away from the purpose and the necessity of this 
legislation. In fact, I am very gratified to have secured an amendment 
that will allow State courts to establish a threat assessment database 
similar to that of the U.S. Marshals where they will be able to 
determine the threat status or situation against a respective court, 
and then, of course, to hopefully have an amendment that would pass 
that would provide grants to the highest State courts to be able to 
disseminate those moneys to create that database and that threat 
assessment database.
  In addition, I would say that this hard work and commitment of 
Democratic members on the committee have also now provided for offers 
of grants to State courts so they can make meaningful enhancements to 
courtroom safety and security.
  It provides the U.S. Marshal Service with an additional $100 million 
over the course of the next 5 years to increase ongoing investigations 
and expand the protective services it currently offers to members of 
the Federal judiciary.
  It authorizes the Attorney General to establish a grant program for 
States to establish threat assessment databases.
  Even with these valuable improvements, however, the bill still 
suffers from a number of fatal flaws, specifically its inclusion of 16 
mandatory minimum sentences and its establishment of one new death-
penalty-eligible offense.
  Let me comment briefly on those mandatory sentences. Mandatory 
minimum penalties have been studied extensively; and the vast majority 
of available research clearly indicates that they do not, in many 
instances, work. Among many other things, they have been shown to 
distort the sentencing process to discriminate against minorities in 
their application and to waste valuable taxpayer money.
  But the real emphasis is, although we are here today to protect our 
court systems and our court officials and our law enforcement 
officials, we are also here to recognize the discretion necessary for 
our courts; and in many instances, the judicial conference itself has 
indicated its desire to have more discretion in sentencing.
  The Judicial Conference of the United States would see the impact of 
mandatory minimum sentences on individual cases, as well as on the 
criminal justice system as a whole, and has expressed its deep 
opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing over a dozen times to 
Congress, noting that these sentences severely distort and damage the 
Federal sentencing system. Yes, we must have deterrence, and I have 
supported enhancements of penalties, adding more time for individuals 
to serve; but at the same time, we must allow the courts to make that 
determination.
  If heinous acts against our Federal courts have been perpetrated, 
then that judge hearing that particular case would then have the 
discretion to yield or to render, along with a jury and a jury trial, 
the highest sentence; but the mandatory minimum would not be there in 
place of a judge's discretion.
  As I was saying, the Federal sentencing system, the Judicial 
Conference has said, and the mandatory sentencing undermine the 
sentencing guideline regimen established by Congress to promote 
fairness and proportionality and destroy honesty in sentencing by 
encouraging charge and fact plea bargains.
  In fact, in a recent letter to members of the Crime Subcommittee 
regarding H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act 
of 2005, the conference noted that mandatory minimum sentences create 
the opposite of their intended effect. Far from fostering certainty in 
punishment, mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing 
disparity, and mandatory minimums treat dissimilar offenders in a 
similar manner, although those offenders can be quite different with 
respect to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger to society.
  So I would suggest that we are united around the necessity of this 
legislation. We must protect our courts and those officials. I might 
add that I hope

[[Page H10092]]

that we will have further discussion about lawyers who are engaged in 
the practice of law in cases where they come under particular threats, 
whether it is in particular the prosecutor who is covered by this or 
defense lawyers and other lawyers who engage in cases which generate 
threats against their lives. We might consider hearings that would 
discuss that propensity.
  I might also say that the inconsistent and arbitrary nature of 
mandatory minimum sentences is made readily apparent by a quick 
analysis of section 2 of the bill. Section 2 establishes a 1-year 
mandatory minimum with 10-year maximum criminal penalty for assaulting 
the immediate family member of a law enforcement officer or judge, if 
the assault results in bodily injury. However, just a few lines later 
in the same section, an identical criminal penalty is established for a 
simple threat.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that as we support this 
legislation that we also take note of some of the inconsistencies that 
might warrant consideration as this bill makes its way through the 
House, through the Senate and, of course, conference.
  On the issue of the death penalty, let me suggest these few thoughts. 
In creating a new death-penalty-eligible offense for anyone convicted 
of killing a federally funded public safety officer, there is no 
disagreement in the value of our public safety officer. It is just 
whether or not in addition to such an offense of death penalty, whether 
or not a substitute of life imprisonment without parole could have 
equally been used. Expansion of the use of the Federal death penalty in 
the current environment seems to warrant consideration.
  The public is clearly rethinking the appropriateness of the death 
penalty in general due to the evidence that it is ineffective in 
deterring crime and is racially discriminatory and is more often than 
not found to be erroneously applied.
  I know that for a fact in a recent case we had in Texas, Frances 
Newton, a young woman accused of killing her children and her husband, 
a horrific and heinous crime, certainly one would suggest that she 
warrants the ultimate penalty. However, unfortunately, in petitioning 
to get a new trial on the basis of real definitive new evidence, the 
courts would not consider such; and, of course, Frances Newton has gone 
to her death. I believe that she has gone to her death with raising the 
question of whether or not she was, in fact, innocent or guilty.
  In a 23-year comprehensive study of death penalties, 68 percent were 
found to be erroneously applied. So it is not surprising that 119 
people sentenced to death for murder over the past 12 years been 
completely exonerated of those crimes.
  This is a good bill. It would have been even better if we had 
considered life without parole and considered the viability or the 
necessity of creating a new eligibility for the death penalty.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider this legislation.
  Let me begin by saying that I strongly support the need to protect 
judges and court officials from threats and violence. Despite this 
fact, I do have major concerns with this bill. For example, H.R. 1751 
proposes to add 16 new mandatory minimum sentences to the current 
criminal code. Mandatory minimum penalties have been studied 
extensively and the vast majority of available research clearly 
indicates that they do not work. Among other things, they have been 
shown to distort the sentencing process, to discriminate against 
minorities in their application, and to waste valuable taxpayer money.
  The Judicial Conference of the United States, which sees the impact 
of mandatory minimum sentences on individual cases as well as on the 
criminal justice system as a whole, has expressed its deep opposition 
to mandatory minimum sentencing over a dozen times to Congress, noting 
that these sentences ``severely distort and damage the Federal 
sentencing system . . . undermine the Sentencing Guideline regimen'' 
established by Congress to promote fairness and proportionality, and 
``destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging charge and fact plea 
bargains.''
  In fact, in a recent letter to Members of the Crime Subcommittee 
regarding H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act 
of 2005,'' the Conference noted that mandatory minimum sentences create 
``the opposite of their intended effect.''
  Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory minimums result 
in unwarranted sentencing disparity. Mandatory minimums treat 
dissimilar offenders in a similar manner, although those offenders can 
be quite different with respect to the seriousness of their conduct or 
their danger to society.
  The inconsistent and arbitrary nature of mandatory minimum sentences 
is made readily apparent by a quick analysis of section 2 of the bill. 
Section 2 establishes a one year mandatory minimum (with a 10 year 
maximum criminal penalty) for assaulting the immediate family member of 
a law enforcement officer or judge--if the assault results in bodily 
injury. However, just a few lines later in the same section, an 
identical criminal penalty is established for a simple threat. Thus, 
the same section of the bill makes two completely different actions, 
with considerably varying outcomes, subject to the same term of 
imprisonment.
  Furthermore, H.R. 1751 unwisely creates a new death penalty eligible 
offense for anyone convicted of killing a federally funded public 
safety officer. Expansion of the use of the federal death penalty in 
the current environment is patently unwarranted. The public is clearly 
rethinking the appropriateness of the death penalty, in general, due to 
the evidence that it is ineffective in deterring crime, is racially 
discriminatory, and is more often than not found to be erroneously 
applied. In a 23-year comprehensive study of death penalties, 68 
percent were found to be erroneously applied. So, it is not surprising 
that 119 people sentenced to death for murder over the past 12 years 
have been completely exonerated of those crimes. Nor is it surprising 
with that such a lackluster record of death penalty administrations 
that several states have abolished the death penalty. For example, 
Connecticut has not executed anyone in 45 years.
  Without a doubt, the increasing numbers of innocent people released 
from death row illustrates the fallibility of the current system. Last 
year, a University of Michigan study identified 199 murder exonerations 
since 1989, 73 of them in capital cases. Moreover, the same study found 
that death row inmates represent a quarter of 1 percent of the prison 
population but 22 percent of the exonerated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the author of the bill.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much. I do 
appreciate the time. I appreciate all the assistance in this bill. The 
chairman has been wonderful in helping with this and making this a 
reality.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1751, the Secure 
Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005. This bill prevents, 
protects, and punishes. It prevents future attacks, it protects the 
entire courthouse family, and it punishes those who threaten the safety 
and security of our Nation's courthouses. The time has come to restore 
some sanity and security, and it is the responsibility of the 
government to assure our citizens have a safe courtroom.
  The legislation will work to prevent future attacks in our Nation's 
courthouses such as what happened at my former courthouse in east 
Texas. That tragic day in February, we lost a brave man, Mark Wilson, 
who stepped up to attempt to save the lives of innocent citizens at the 
courthouse and was killed the same day. Also, Deputy Sherman Dollison 
was badly injured while he attempted to protect those at the 
courthouse. With passage of the Secure Access to Justice and Court 
Protection Act, we are taking an important step toward prevention of 
similar events happening again.
  This bill has garnered a lot of support across the country since its 
introduction in April, and I want to take a moment to thank some of 
those who have supported H.R. 1751.
  First of all, I thank Judge Cynthia Kent, who hails from the Rose 
City of Tyler, Texas. Judge Kent is a talented judge and a good friend. 
She testified before the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security 
Subcommittee about the tragic events that took place right outside the 
courtroom she presides over. She, too, knows personally about threats 
against her and her family. Her input and support have been extremely 
helpful in developing this legislation.
  Judge Jane Roth, former chairwoman of the Judicial Conference 
Committee on Security and Facilities, also testified and was very 
helpful; Honorable Paul McNulty, who was then the U.S. Attorney for the 
Eastern District of Virginia; and also Honorable John Clark, who at 
that time was a U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia.
  I would also like to thank Judge Joan Lefkow for her testimony before

[[Page H10093]]

the Senate supporting the court security legislation. I have spoken 
with her personally and again just in the last hour, and she is most 
gracious and also grateful for the overall bill. She had also mentioned 
previously when I talked with her a concern about provisions regarding 
writs of habeas corpus procedure. That has been pulled from the bill 
itself. It is not part of the overall bill today. We also know that her 
elderly mother and husband were tragically murdered by a disgruntled 
gentleman who was upset by a ruling she had made in a case.
  This bill requires consultation and coordination of U.S. courts 
between U.S. Marshals and the courts themselves. It will open the lines 
of communication between the marshals and the courts and, therefore, 
help with the prevention, protection, and penalties in this bill.
  Those of us who have had threats against us as judges, but 
particularly against our families, understand all too well the 
importance of this bill.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for shepherding 
this legislation as he has through his committee, through the rules and 
here to the floor. It is an honor to serve with him on the Judiciary 
Committee that he chairs, and I thank the chairman for that continued 
support.

                              {time}  1630

  This legislation will protect immediate family members of federally 
funded public safety officers and judges at all levels. It also 
provides enhanced penalties where the victims are U.S. judges, Federal 
law enforcement officers, federally funded public safety officers, and 
includes now a provision to protect National Guard troops when they are 
acting as public safety officers.
  It increases the maximum punishment for crimes against victims, 
witnesses, jurors and informants.
  This bill adds a new Federal crime prohibiting recording a fictitious 
lien by covering officers and employees of the United States, including 
the Federal judiciary and its employees. It provides a 30-year 
mandatory minimum to life in prison, or the death penalty for killing a 
federally funded public safety officer. Of course, for the defendant to 
get the death penalty, a death must have resulted from their actions. 
The bill includes killing members of the National Guard, as I 
mentioned, and gives them added protection.
  There has been some mention by the gentlewoman from Texas regarding 
mandatory minimums, and it should be noted that we removed a number of 
mandatory minimums in this bill for things like simple assault and 
threats. So the court has that consideration. But when it comes to 
seriously threatening, killing, kidnapping, conspiring to do these 
things, there should be a mandatory minimum and there is. The folks 
that we attempt to protect are on the front lines. They need 
protection.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Rules Committee chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). His bill was added to this, the 
David March provision, making a new Federal criminal offense for flight 
to avoid prosecution for killing a peace officer. It imposes 10 years 
in prison in addition to whatever the defendant receives. So it stacks 
it.
  This is not intended to usurp State authority but to assist the 
States where they need it and where they are unable. This valuable 
piece of legislation is seeking to ensure the safety and security of 
America's last bastion of civility, our Nation's courthouses. I urge 
all Members to vote yes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me simply say that I think we will continue to have discussions 
as relates to mandatory minimums. I think this bill has great purpose; 
I think it is important, however, for us to raise those issues.
  I will conclude by saying that we have a long way to go in the 
criminal justice system, and I hope that we will also bring to the 
floor of the House this whole issue of early release for those who are 
languishing in prisons. I hope the Good Time Early Release bill for 
nonviolent prisoners in our Federal prisons who are over 40 years old 
will have an opportunity for full debate, because they all go hand-in-
hand.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, can you advise how much time 
remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 20\1/2\ minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 18\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1751. With several 
sensational incidents in recent years involving the murders of judges, 
family members of judges, court personnel, witnesses and other victims, 
we have seen the consequences of insufficient security for our court 
operations and personnel associated with the courts.
  All are agreed that enhancement of security for our courts and all 
persons associated with them is imperative. However, the main focus of 
this bill is not the things that the courts have asked for to enhance 
their security, but on extraneous death penalties and mandatory minimum 
sentences which will do nothing to improve the security of our courts 
or personnel associated with them.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge and thank Chairman Sensenbrenner 
for making significant improvements in this bill since our initial 
consideration of the bill in subcommittee, by removing a number of the 
superfluous mandatory minimum sentences and death penalties from the 
bill. However, all such provisions were not removed.
  The notion that Congress has to direct judges on how to sentence 
those who harm or threaten judges and their families and others 
associated with court activities, or that Congress has to replace the 
States in prosecution of murders of State judges and other State 
officials is absurd. The kinds of people we are talking about clearly 
have not been deterred by death penalties and mandatory minimum 
sentences already on the books and applicable to them for those kinds 
of crimes, so they certainly will not be deterred by adding more such 
mandatory minimums. And judges facing such defendants clearly do not 
need congressional guidance on what the appropriate sentences may be.
  Accordingly, I have prepared an amendment which would remove the 
provisions allowing the Federal Government, simply on the basis of 
someone's salary being paid in part by Federal funds, to take over 
traditional State prosecutions of State murder cases. I have also 
prepared an amendment which would remove the mandatory minimum 
sentencing in Federal cases involving judges, their family members or 
other court personnel, and replaced them with higher maximums that 
would allow even greater sentences than the bill allows in cases which 
warrant it, but would not require sentences which violate common sense.
  The courts have not requested mandatory minimums or death penalties 
because they do nothing to protect the court. Nevertheless, here we go 
again with more mandatory minimums and more death penalties. In fact, 
Mr. Chairman, the Federal courts have consistently and loudly expressed 
their strong opposition to mandatory minimum sentences.
  Through rigorous study and analysis, as well as through their 
everyday experiences in sentencing major players and bit players in 
crime, the courts have determined mandatory minimums to be less 
effective than regular sentencing. They have found them to be racially 
discriminatory in their application. They have found mandatory minimums 
to waste money compared to traditional sentences, and they have found 
mandatory minimums to be a violation of common sense.
  The Judicial Conference has written us often to express their 
opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing and has just written us 
again with this bill to state their opposition to mandatory minimum 
sentences as a violation of the systemic sentencing scheme designed to 
``reduce unwarranted disparity and to provide proportionality and 
fairness in punishment.'' That idea is violated with mandatory 
minimums.
  The Judicial Conference and everyone concerned supports the grant 
programs in the bill aimed at strengthening court security and 
personnel and providing security for persons associated with the 
courts. Absent mandatory minimums and the extension of the death 
penalties, this bill would be one that we could all support.

[[Page H10094]]

  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, because of the mandatory minimums and 
death penalty it is not one we can all support.

                                        Judicial Conference of the


                                                United States,

                                 Washington, DC, November 8, 2005.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Ranking Democrat, Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Conyers: On behalf of the Judicial 
     Conference of the United States, the policy-making body of 
     the federal judiciary. I am writing to convey its views 
     regarding several of the provisions contained in H.R. 1751, 
     the ``Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 
     2005.''
       Much of the impetus for portions of this bill arose from 
     the tragic circumstances surrounding the attempted murder of 
     Judge Joan Lefkow of the United States District Court for the 
     Northern District of Illinois. Although Judge Lefkow survived 
     the attack, her mother and husband were shot and killed by 
     the assailant, a disgruntled litigant.
       The current bill contains several provisions that are of 
     particular interest to the federal courts. Section 13 of the 
     bill requires the U.S. Marshals Service to consult with the 
     Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts regarding the 
     security requirements of the Judicial Branch. While the 
     provision does not extend to a requirement that the Marshals 
     Service ``coordinate'' with the judiciary, we believe the 
     proposed change is positive and will enhance judicial 
     security. Section 14 of the bill is positive in that it will 
     help protect judges from the malicious recording of 
     fictitious liens and is supported by the Judicial Conference. 
     Section 16 of the bill is of particular interest to federal 
     judges and their security because it will allow them to 
     continue to redact sensitive information from their financial 
     disclosure forms. Not a day goes by without some unauthorized 
     incursion into an information database containing personal 
     information and this provision is an important tool in 
     protecting such personal information.
       Unfortunately, the bill also contains various provisions 
     that expand the application of mandatory minimum sentences. 
     The Judicial Conference opposes mandatory minimum sentencing 
     provisions because they undermine the sentencing guideline 
     regime Congress established under the Sentencing Reform Act 
     of 1984 by preventing the systematic development of 
     guidelines that reduce unwarranted disparity and provide 
     proportionality and fairness in punishment.
       The bill also contains a provision that would allow the 
     presiding judge, at all levels of the judicial process, to 
     permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, 
     or televising to the public of the court proceedings over 
     which that judge presides. The Judicial Conference believes 
     that the circuit councils of each circuit should retain the 
     authority to establish rules for the photographing, 
     recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments in their 
     courts. The Judicial Conference does not support legislation 
     that would allow trial court judges the discretion to 
     broadcast their courts' proceedings.
       I appreciate having the opportunity to express the views of 
     the Judicial Conference in relation to H.R., 1751, the 
     ``Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 
     2005.'' If you have any questions regarding this legislation 
     please contact Arthur White at (202) 502-1700.
           Sincerely,
                                            Leonidas Ralph Mecham,
     Secretary.
                                  ____

                                         American Bar Association,


                                  Governmental Affairs Office,

                                 Washington, DC, November 8, 2005.
     Hon. Bobby Scott,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Scott: We understand that during 
     consideration by the House of Representatives of H.R. 1751, 
     the Safe Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005, 
     an amendment will be offered by Representative Jeff Flake (R-
     AZ) to propose a range of changes in the law governing 
     federal habeas corpus review of capital cases. The ABA 
     strongly opposes this amendment and urges House members to 
     reject it.
       This amendment proposes a number of technical changes in a 
     complicated area of law without the benefit of hearings or 
     any previous consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. 
     It is inconsistent with other pending House and Senate 
     legislation and its enactment would create more confusion and 
     chaos in a complex area of law.
       We are particularly concerned about a provision in the 
     amendment that would completely remove federal court 
     jurisdiction for all sentencing phase claims, not just those 
     found harmless by the state courts. Under this proposal, 
     unless the claim goes to the validity of the conviction 
     itself, it is not cognizable in the federal courts.
       If such a profound change in law were enacted, there would 
     no longer be a federal forum for claims of ineffective 
     assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase. As a result, 
     no matter how inadequate the representation (e.g., the 
     sleeping lawyer case), the court would be without 
     jurisdiction. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct relating to 
     the penalty phase would not be cognizable. For example, if 
     the prosecution suppressed evidence about the identity of the 
     trigger-man, that would also not be cognizable. At a 
     resentencing proceeding ordered by a state court on direct 
     appeal, a prosecutor could commit a flagrant violation of 
     Batson v. Kentucky by striking all African-Americans from the 
     jury, and a federal court would be powerless to do anything 
     about it. In short, no matter how unreasonable the state 
     court decision was, there would be no federal jurisdiction 
     for sentencing phase issues. The House should not act on such 
     far-reaching changes in the law of federal habeas corpus 
     jurisdiction without more careful consideration and should 
     reject the Flake amendment when it considers H.R. 1751. 
     Fairness and justice demand no less.
           Sincerely,
     Robert D. Evans.
                                  ____

                                   American Civil Liberties Union,
                                 Washington, DC, November 9, 2005.
     Re House Floor Vote on November 9, 2005, regarding H.R. 1751, 
         Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 
         2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil 
     Liberties Union, we write to express our opposition to H.R. 
     1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act 
     of 2005. This legislation would create a 30-year mandatory 
     minimum sentence for second-degree murder in federal criminal 
     cases, add numerous other discriminatory mandatory minimum 
     sentences as well as expand the number of crimes eligible for 
     the federal death penalty. H.R. 1751 is scheduled for a floor 
     vote on Wednesday, November 9; we urge you to oppose this 
     legislation.
       The House Rules Committee has made a number of amendments 
     in order for the floor debate on H.R. 1751; we urge your 
     support for the following amendments:
       (1) Scott (VA) #8: This amendment replaces all mandatory 
     minimum sentences with higher maximum sentences. This bill 
     creates many new mandatory minimums and changes the criminal 
     penalties for several existing federal crimes to mandatory 
     minimum sentences. For instance, H.R. 1751 would make the 
     punishment for second-degree murder a 30-year mandatory 
     sentence. Mandatory minimum sentences deprive judges of the 
     ability to impose sentences that fit the particular offense 
     and offender. Although mandatory minimums were designed to 
     reduce the racial inequalities that too often resulting from 
     judicial sentencing discretion, in practice they shift 
     discretion from the judge to the prosecutor. Prosecutors 
     retain the power to plea bargain and choose which defendants 
     they will offer plea agreements to in order for those 
     defendants to avoid the mandatory penalty. It is not clear 
     what standards (if any) prosecutors use to offer plea 
     bargains, therefore only a few defendants get the benefit of 
     avoiding the mandatory sentence. This creates unfair and 
     inequitable sentences for people who commit similar crimes, 
     thus contributing to the very problem mandatory minimums were 
     created to address.
       (2) Scott (VA) #9: This amendment strikes the death penalty 
     for the killing of federally funded public safety officers. 
     According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 121 
     prisoners on death row have now been exonerated since 1973. 
     Chronic problems, including inadequate defense counsel and 
     racial disparities, plague the death penalty system in the 
     United States. As a matter of principle, Congress should not 
     be expanding the federal death penalty while these problems 
     remain unresolved.
       We urge you to oppose the following amendment:
       (1) Flake #2: This amendment would eliminate federal 
     jurisdiction for all sentencing phase claims in habeas corpus 
     proceedings, unless the claim went to the validity of the 
     state conviction in a capital cases. For example, this would 
     result in federal courts not having jurisdiction to review 
     habeas petitions involving claims in state capital cases that 
     were based on ineffective assistance of counsel or 
     prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing phase of the 
     case--errors that could mean the difference between life and 
     death for the petitioner. In addition, this amendment would 
     authorize the U.S. Attorney General to determine whether in a 
     capital case a state's indigent defense counsel system passes 
     constitutional muster. The Attorney General, our nation's top 
     federal prosecutor, is not an objective party and therefore 
     should not decide whether states have provided competent 
     defense counsel in death penalty cases.
       For the above-mentioned reasons, we urge members to oppose 
     H.R. 1751 when the House votes on the bill on November 9, 
     2005.
           Sincerely,
                                             Caroline Fredrickson,
                                                         Director.
                                                 Jesselyn McCurdy,
                                              Legislative Counsel.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the legislation under consideration today 
represents a vast improvement over the version of the bill as 
originally introduced.
  Thanks to the hard work and commitment of Democratic members on the 
committee, it now offers grants to state courts so that they can make 
meaningful enhancements to courtroom safety and security. It provides 
the US Marshals Service with an additional $100 million, over the 
course of the next five years, to increase ongoing investigations and 
expand the protective services it currently offers to members of the 
federal judiciary. And it authorizes the Attorney General to establish 
a grant program for states to establish threat assessment databases.

[[Page H10095]]

  Even with these valuable improvements, however, the bill still 
suffers from two fatal flaws. Specifically, its inclusion of 16 new 
mandatory minimum sentences and its establishment of one new death 
penalty eligible offense.
  Mandatory minimums have been studied extensively and have been proven 
to be ineffective in preventing crime. They also have been proven to 
distort the sentencing process, and waste valuable taxpayer money.
  With more than 2.1 million Americans currently in jail or prison--
roughly quadruple the number individuals incarcerated in 1985--it's 
hard to see how anyone can continue with such a deeply flawed strategy.
  Today, this country incarcerates its citizens at a rate 14 times that 
of Japan, 8 times the rate of France and 6 times the rate of Canada.
  We spend an estimated $40 billion a year to imprison criminal 
offenders, we choose to build prisons over schools and we fail to 
provide inmates released from prison with the necessary tools and 
assistance for a successful re-entry into society.
  Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, almost 10 percent of all 
inmates in state and federal prisons are serving life sentences, an 
increase of 83 percent from 1992. In two states alone, New York and 
California, almost 20 percent of inmates are serving life sentences.
  We've also noted the numerous problems that exist with regard to the 
death penalty. Namely, that all of the available evidence clearly 
demonstrates that the current system is flawed, defendants rarely 
receive adequate legal representation and that its application is 
racially discriminatory .
  There are now over 100 Americans that have been sentenced to death, 
only later to be exonerated. Proving that many of the people convicted 
and sentenced to death are actually innocent.
  In the end, the few grants that this bill purports to offer in the 
area of witness protection and court security can't make up for its two 
fatal flaws.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the entire country witnessed what 
happened in my district, in the Fulton County Courthouse, on the 
morning of March 11, 2005.
  On that day, Brian Nichols, was to appear in a retrial for charges of 
rape and false imprisonment. As he was escorted from his holding cell 
to change into civilian clothes for the proceeding, he over-powered the 
female sheriff's deputy overseeing his transfer, stole her gun, and 
shot her in the face. Mr. Nichols then proceeded to run through the 
courthouse complex, unimpeded, steal another firearm and shoot 3 more 
people, including long-time superior court judge Rowland Barnes, a 
revered judicial figure in the Atlanta area.
  Mr. Nichols managed to escape the courthouse and evade police for 
more than two days during which time he used the fire arms that he 
stole in the courthouse, injuring several more people, stole multiple 
vehicles and held one woman hostage before he was finally apprehended.
  Mr. Speaker, this episode highlights the merits of this bill not just 
because of the security failures that allowed it to happen. This much 
is self-evident.
  In the aftermath of the security failures at the Fulton County 
Courthouse, the entire Atlanta metropolitan area, an area of more than 
4 million people, was on edge. Schools were put on lock down in several 
counties. If we had proper security measures in place on that fateful 
Friday morning, we could have avoided the hysteria and disruptions of 
normal life that followed.
  My constituents, the residents of the Atlanta area, and the law-
abiding citizens of this great nation deserve the right to go about 
their daily lives knowing that our court rooms are secure. Therefore, I 
urge the passing of this bill.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1751 and in support 
of the dedicated public servants working in our criminal justice 
system. The very nature of their work brings them in contact with 
dangerous criminals on a daily basis. After conviction, some of these 
criminals seek revenge against the prosecutors and judges who put them 
in prison. As unfortunate as it is, we must do more to protect those in 
the justice system who work to protect all of us.
  We all remember the brutal murders of Michael Lefkow and Donna 
Humphrey, the husband and mother of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow. 
The initial investigation focused on a likely suspect, white 
supremacist Matthew Hale, who had been convicted of soliciting Judge 
Lefkow's murder only a year before. As it turns out, Hale was not 
behind the murders, but another disgruntled individual with a history 
in front of Judge Lefkow was. Bart Ross, a plaintiff in a medical 
malpractice case Judge Lefkow dismissed, wrote a letter to a Chicago 
television station admitting he killed Michael Lefkow and Donna 
Humphrey and that his target had been the Judge. Included in the note 
was a ``hit list'' of others he felt had wronged him, many of whom were 
involved in his medical malpractice case. One of the individuals on the 
``hit list'' is a constituent of mine and while we are thankful he and 
his family are safe, it is a chilling reminder that the security of 
judicial officials cannot be taken for granted.
  This tragic case is just one example of the danger prosecutors and 
judges can face simply for doing their jobs. Even though Matthew Hale 
and his white supremacist group were not responsible for the Letkow 
murders, they were vocal in their praise for the killings on the 
Internet. The fact remains that judges, prosecutors, and their families 
are often targeted and they can be in danger wherever they go, even in 
their own homes. Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation and I believe 
the Congress should do all it can to protect judges and their families 
and enhance courthouse security.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1751

       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 ``Secure Access to Justice and 
     Court Protection Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. PENALTIES FOR INFLUENCING, IMPEDING, OR RETALIATING 
                   AGAINST JUDGES AND OTHER OFFICIALS BY 
                   THREATENING OR INJURING A FAMILY MEMBER.

       Section 115 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection 
     (a)(1), by inserting ``federally funded public safety officer 
     (as defined for the purposes of section 1123)'' after 
     ``Federal law enforcement officer,'';
       (2) so that subsection (b) reads as follows:
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     punishment for an offense under this section is as follows:
       ``(A) The punishment for an assault in violation of this 
     section is the same as that provided for a like offense under 
     section 111.
       ``(B) The punishment for a kidnapping, attempted 
     kidnapping, or conspiracy to kidnap in violation of this 
     section is the same as provided for a like violation in 
     section 1201.
       ``(C) The punishment for a murder, attempted murder, or 
     conspiracy to murder in violation of this section is the same 
     as provided for a like offense under section 1111, 1113, and 
     1117.
       ``(D) A threat made in violation of this section shall be 
     punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not 
     more than 10 years, or both.
       ``(2) If the victim of the offense under this section is an 
     immediate family member of a United States judge, a Federal 
     law enforcement officer (as defined for the purposes of 
     section 1114) or of a federally funded public safety officer 
     (as defined for the purposes of section 1123), in lieu of the 
     punishments otherwise provided by paragraph (1), the 
     punishments shall be as follows:
       ``(A) The punishment for an assault in violation of this 
     section is as follows:
       ``(i) If the assault is a simple assault, a fine under this 
     title or a term of imprisonment for not more than one year, 
     or both.
       ``(ii) If the assault resulted in bodily injury (as defined 
     in section 1365), a fine under this title and a term of 
     imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than 10 
     years.
       ``(iii) If the assault resulted in substantial bodily 
     injury (as defined in section 113), a fine under this title 
     and a term of imprisonment for not less than 3 years nor more 
     than 12 years.
       ``(iv) If the assault resulted in serious bodily injury (as 
     defined in section 2119), a fine under this title and a term 
     of imprisonment for not less than 10 years nor more than 30 
     years.
       ``(B) The punishment for a kidnapping, attempted 
     kidnapping, or conspiracy to kidnap in violation of this 
     section is a fine under this title and imprisonment for any 
     term of years not less than 30, or for life.
       ``(C) The punishment for a murder, attempted murder, or 
     conspiracy to murder in violation of this section is a fine 
     under this title and imprisonment for any term of years not 
     less than 30, or for life, or, if death results, the offender 
     may be sentenced to death.
       ``(D) A threat made in violation of this section shall be 
     punished by a fine under this title and imprisonment for not 
     less than one year nor more than 10 years.
       ``(E) If a dangerous weapon was used during and in relation 
     to the offense, the punishment shall include a term of 
     imprisonment of 5 years in addition to that otherwise imposed 
     under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 3. PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN ASSAULTS.

       (a) Inclusion of Federally Funded Public Safety Officers.--
     Section 111(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or a federally funded 
     public safety officer (as defined in section 1123)'' after 
     ``1114 of this title''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or a federally funded 
     public safety officer (as defined in section 1123)'' after 
     ``1114''.

[[Page H10096]]

       (b) Alternate Penalty Where Victim Is a United States 
     Judge, a Federal Law Enforcement Officer, or Federally Funded 
     Public Safety Officer.--Section 111 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Alternate Penalty Where Victim Is a United States 
     Judge, a Federal Law Enforcement Officer, or Federally Funded 
     Public Safety Officer.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), if the offense is an assault and the victim of the 
     offense under this section is a United States judge, a 
     Federal law enforcement officer (as defined for the purposes 
     of section 1114) or of a federally funded public safety 
     officer (as defined for the purposes of section 1123), in 
     lieu of the penalties otherwise set forth in this section, 
     the offender shall be subject to a fine under this title 
     and--
       ``(A) If the assault is a simple assault, a fine under this 
     title or a term of imprisonment for not more than one year, 
     or both.
       ``(B) if the assault resulted in bodily injury (as defined 
     in section 1365), shall be imprisoned not less than one nor 
     more than 10 years;
       ``(C) if the assault resulted in substantial bodily injury 
     (as defined in section 113), shall be imprisoned not less 
     than 3 nor more than 12 years; and
       ``(D) if the assault resulted in serious bodily injury (as 
     defined in section 2119), shall be imprisoned not less than 
     10 nor more than 30 years.
       ``(2) If a dangerous weapon was used during and in relation 
     to the offense, the punishment shall include a term of 
     imprisonment of 5 years in addition to that otherwise imposed 
     under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF FEDERALLY FUNDED PUBLIC SAFETY 
                   OFFICERS.

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

     ``Sec. 1123. Killing of federally funded public safety 
       officers

       ``(a) Whoever kills, or attempts or conspires to kill, a 
     federally funded public safety officer while that officer is 
     engaged in official duties, or arising out of the performance 
     of official duties, or kills a former federally funded public 
     safety officer arising out of the performance of official 
     duties, shall be punished by a fine under this title and 
     imprisonment for any term of years not less than 30, or for 
     life, or, if death results, may be sentenced to death.
       ``(b) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `federally funded public safety officer' 
     means a public safety officer for a public agency (including 
     a court system, the National Guard of a State to the extent 
     the personnel of that National Guard are not in Federal 
     service, and the defense forces of a State authorized by 
     section 109 of title 32) that receives Federal financial 
     assistance, of an entity that is a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American 
     Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or any 
     territory or possession of the United States, an Indian 
     tribe, or a unit of local government of that entity;
       ``(2) the term `public safety officer' means an individual 
     serving a public agency in an official capacity, as a 
     judicial officer, as a law enforcement officer, as a 
     firefighter, as a chaplain, or as a member of a rescue squad 
     or ambulance crew;
       ``(3) the term `judicial officer' means a judge or other 
     officer or employee of a court, including prosecutors, court 
     security, pretrial services officers, court reporters, and 
     corrections, probation, and parole officers; and
       ``(4) the term `firefighter' includes an individual serving 
     as an official recognized or designated member of a legally 
     organized volunteer fire department and an officially 
     recognized or designated public employee member of a rescue 
     squad or ambulance crew; and
       ``(5) the term `law enforcement officer' means an 
     individual involved in crime and juvenile delinquency control 
     or reduction, or enforcement of the laws.''.
       (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 new item:

``1123. Killing of federally funded public safety officers.''.

     SEC. 5. GENERAL MODIFICATIONS OF FEDERAL MURDER CRIME AND 
                   RELATED CRIMES.

       (a) Murder Amendments.--Section 1111 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended in subsection (b), by inserting ``not 
     less than 30'' after ``any term of years''.
       (b) Manslaughter Amendments.--Section 1112(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``ten years'' and inserting ``20 years''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``six years'' and inserting ``10 years''.

     SEC. 6. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF OFFENSE AND OF THE 
                   PENALTIES FOR, INFLUENCING OR INJURING OFFICER 
                   OR JUROR GENERALLY.

       Section 1503 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) so that subsection (a) reads as follows:
       ``(a)(1) Whoever--
       ``(A) corruptly, or by threats of force or force, endeavors 
     to influence, intimidate, or impede a juror or officer in a 
     judicial proceeding in the discharge of that juror or 
     officer's duty;
       ``(B) injures a juror or an officer in a judicial 
     proceeding arising out of the performance of official duties 
     as such juror or officer; or
       ``(C) corruptly, or by threats of force or force, 
     obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, 
     or impede, the due administration of justice;
     or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as 
     provided in subsection (b).
       ``(2) As used in this section, the term `juror or officer 
     in a judicial proceeding' means a grand or petit juror, or 
     other officer in or of any court of the United States, or an 
     officer who may be serving at any examination or other 
     proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other 
     committing magistrate.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraphs (1) through 
     (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) in the case of a killing, or an attempt or a 
     conspiracy to kill, the punishment provided in section 1111, 
     1112, 1113, and 1117; and
       ``(2) in any other case, a fine under this title and 
     imprisonment for not more than 30 years.''.

     SEC. 7. MODIFICATION OF TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS, VICTIM, OR 
                   AN INFORMANT OFFENSE.

       (a) Changes in Penalties.--Section 1512 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in each of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), 
     insert ``or conspires'' after ``attempts'';
       (2) so that subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(3) reads as 
     follows:
       ``(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in 
     sections 1111 and 1112;'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (A) in the matter following clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) 
     by striking ``20 years'' and inserting ``30 years'' ; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``10 years'' and 
     inserting ``20 years'';
       (4) in subsection (b), by striking ``ten years'' and 
     inserting ``30 years''; and
       (5) in subsection (d), by striking ``one year'' and 
     inserting ``20 years''.

     SEC. 8. MODIFICATION OF RETALIATION OFFENSE.

       Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``or conspires'' 
     after ``attempts'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(1)(B)--
       (A) by inserting a comma after ``probation''; and
       (B) by striking the comma which immediately follows another 
     comma;
       (3) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``20 years'' and 
     inserting ``30 years'';
       (4) in subsection (b), by striking ``ten years'' and 
     inserting ``30 years'';
       (5) in the first subsection (e), by striking ``10 years'' 
     and inserting ``30 years''; and
       (6) by redesignating the second subsection (e) as 
     subsection (f).

     SEC. 9. INCLUSION OF INTIMIDATION AND RETALIATION AGAINST 
                   WITNESSES IN STATE PROSECUTIONS AS BASIS FOR 
                   FEDERAL PROSECUTION.

       Section 1952 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in 
     subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``intimidation of, or 
     retaliation against, a witness, victim, juror, or 
     informant,'' after ``extortion, bribery,''.

     SEC. 10. CLARIFICATION OF VENUE FOR RETALIATION AGAINST A 
                   WITNESS.

       Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) A prosecution under this section may be brought in 
     the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not 
     pending, about to be instituted or completed) was intended to 
     be affected or was completed, or in which the conduct 
     constituting the alleged offense occurred.''.

     SEC. 11. WITNESS PROTECTION GRANT PROGRAM.

       Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
     of 1968 is amended by inserting after part BB (42 U.S.C. 
     3797j et seq.) the following new part:

                  ``PART CC--WITNESS PROTECTION GRANTS

     ``SEC. 2811. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--From amounts made available to carry out 
     this part, the Attorney General may make grants to States, 
     units of local government, and Indian tribes to create and 
     expand witness protection programs in order to prevent 
     threats, intimidation, and retaliation against victims of, 
     and witnesses to, crimes.
       ``(b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this part shall 
     be--
       ``(1) distributed directly to the State, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe; and
       ``(2) used for the creation and expansion of witness 
     protection programs in the jurisdiction of the grantee.
       ``(c) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under 
     this part, the Attorney General may give preferential 
     consideration, if feasible, to an application from a 
     jurisdiction that--
       ``(1) has the greatest need for witness and victim 
     protection programs;
       ``(2) has a serious violent crime problem in the 
     jurisdiction; and
       ``(3) has had, or is likely to have, instances of threats, 
     intimidation, and retaliation against victims of, and 
     witnesses to, crimes.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.

     SEC. 12. GRANTS TO STATES 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 ``; and'' ; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) to create and expand witness and victim protection 
     programs to prevent threats, intimidation, and retaliation 
     against victims of, and witnesses to, violent crimes.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 31707 of the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law

[[Page H10097]]

     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.''.

     SEC. 13. JUDICIAL BRANCH SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Ensuring Consultation and Coordination With the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts.--Section 
     566 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(i) The United States Marshals Service shall consult with 
     the Administrative Office of the United States Courts on a 
     continuing basis regarding the security requirements for the 
     Judicial Branch, and inform the Administrative Office of the 
     measures the Marshals Service intends to take to meet those 
     requirements.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 604(a) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating existing paragraph (24) as paragraph 
     (25);
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (23); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (23) the following:
       ``(24) Consult with the United States Marshals Service on a 
     continuing basis regarding the security requirements for the 
     Judicial Branch, and inform the Administrative Office of the 
     measures the Marshals Service intends to take to meet those 
     requirements; and''.

     SEC. 14. PROTECTIONS AGAINST MALICIOUS RECORDING OF 
                   FICTITIOUS LIENS AGAINST A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE.

       (a) Offense.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1521. Retaliating against a Federal employee by false 
       claim or slander of title

       ``Whoever, with the intent to harass a person designated in 
     section 1114 on account of the performance of official 
     duties, files, in any public record or in any private record 
     which is generally available to the public, any false lien or 
     encumbrance against the real or personal property of that 
     person, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined 
     under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or 
     both.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1521. Retaliating against a Federal employee by false claim or 
              slander of title.''.

     SEC. 15. PROHIBITION OF POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS IN 
                   FEDERAL COURT FACILITIES.

       Section 930(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``or other dangerous weapon'' after ``firearm''.

     SEC. 16. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION.

       Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App) is amended by striking subparagraph (E).

     SEC. 17. PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING CERTAIN FEDERAL 
                   AND OTHER FUNCTIONS.

       (a) Offense.--Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 117. Protection of individuals performing certain 
       Federal and federally assisted functions

       ``(a) Whoever knowingly, and with intent to harm, 
     intimidate, or retaliate against a covered official makes 
     restricted personal information about that covered official 
     publicly available through the Internet shall be fined under 
     this title and imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(b) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section 
     that the defendant is a provider of Internet services and did 
     not knowingly participate in the offense.
       ``(c) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `restricted personal information' means, 
     with respect to an individual, the Social Security number, 
     the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number, 
     personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to, 
     that individual; and
       ``(2) the term `covered official' means--
       ``(A) an individual designated in section 1114;
       ``(B) a public safety officer (as that term is defined in 
     section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
     Act of 1968); or
       ``(C) a grand or petit juror, witness, or other officer in 
     or of, any court of the United States, or an officer who may 
     be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any 
     United States magistrate judge or other committing 
     magistrate.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``117. Protection of individuals performing certain Federal and 
              federally assisted functions.''.

     SEC. 18. ELIGIBILITY OF COURTS TO APPLY DIRECTLY FOR LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT DISCRETIONARY GRANTS AND 
                   REQUIREMENT THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 
                   CONSIDER COURTS WHEN APPLYING FOR GRANT FUNDS.

       (a) Courts Treated as Units of Local Governments for 
     Purposes of Discretionary Grants.--Section 901 of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3791) 
     is amended in subsection (a)(3)--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) the judicial branch of a State or of a unit of local 
     government within the State for purposes of discretionary 
     grants;''.
       (b) State and Local Governments to Consider Courts.--The 
     Attorney General shall ensure that whenever a State or unit 
     of local government applies for a grant from the Department 
     of Justice, the State or unit demonstrate that, in developing 
     the application and distributing funds, the State or unit--
       (1) considered the needs of the judicial branch of the 
     State or unit, as the case may be; and
       (2) consulted with the chief judicial officer of the 
     highest court of the State or unit, as the case may be.

     SEC. 19. REPORT ON SECURITY OF FEDERAL PROSECUTORS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report on the 
     security of assistant United States attorneys and other 
     Federal attorneys arising from the prosecution of terrorists, 
     violent criminal gangs, drug traffickers, gun traffickers, 
     white supremacists, and those who commit fraud and other 
     white-collar offenses. The report shall describe each of the 
     following:
       (1) The number and nature of threats and assaults against 
     attorneys handling those prosecutions and the reporting 
     requirements and methods.
       (2) The security measures that are in place to protect the 
     attorneys who are handling those prosecutions, including 
     measures such as threat assessments, response procedures, 
     availability of security systems and other devices, firearms 
     licensing (deputations), and other measures designed to 
     protect the attorneys and their families.
       (3) The Department of Justice's firearms deputation 
     policies, including the number of attorneys deputized and the 
     time between receipt of threat and completion of the 
     deputation and training process.
       (4) For each measure covered by paragraphs (1) through (3), 
     when the report or measure was developed and who was 
     responsible for developing and implementing the report or 
     measure.
       (5) The programs that are made available to the attorneys 
     for personal security training, including training relating 
     to limitations on public information disclosure, basic home 
     security, firearms handling and safety, family safety, mail 
     handling, counter- surveillance, and self-defense tactics.
       (6) The measures that are taken to provide the attorneys 
     with secure parking facilities, and how priorities for such 
     facilities are established--
       (A) among Federal employees within the facility;
       (B) among Department of Justice employees within the 
     facility; and
       (C) among attorneys within the facility.
       (7) The frequency such attorneys are called upon to work 
     beyond standard work hours and the security measures provided 
     to protect attorneys at such times during travel between 
     office and available parking facilities.
       (8) With respect to attorneys who are licensed under State 
     laws to carry firearms, the Department of Justice's policy as 
     to--
       (A) carrying the firearm between available parking and 
     office buildings;
       (B) securing the weapon at the office buildings; and
       (C) equipment and training provided to facilitate safe 
     storage at Department of Justice facilities.
       (9) The offices in the Department of Justice that are 
     responsible for ensuring the security of the attorneys, the 
     organization and staffing of the offices, and the manner in 
     which the offices coordinate with offices in specific 
     districts.
       (10) The role, if any, that the United States Marshals 
     Service or any other Department of Justice component plays in 
     protecting, or providing security services or training for, 
     the attorneys.

     SEC. 20. FLIGHT TO AVOID PROSECUTION FOR KILLING PEACE 
                   OFFICERS.

       (a) Flight.--Chapter 49 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1075. Flight to avoid prosecution for killing peace 
       officers

       ``Whoever moves or travels in interstate or foreign 
     commerce with intent to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place 
     from which he flees or under section 1114 or 1123, for a 
     crime consisting of the killing, an attempted killing, or a 
     conspiracy to kill, an individual involved in crime and 
     juvenile delinquency control or reduction, or enforcement of 
     the laws or for a crime punishable by section 1114 or 1123, 
     shall be fined under this title and imprisoned, in addition 
     to any other imprisonment for the underlying offense, for any 
     term of years not less than 10.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 49 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1075. Flight to avoid prosecution for killing peace officers.''.

     SEC. 21. SPECIAL PENALTIES FOR MURDER, KIDNAPPING, AND 
                   RELATED CRIMES AGAINST FEDERAL JUDGES AND 
                   FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) Murder.--Section 1114 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Whoever''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) If the victim of a murder punishable under this 
     section is a United States judge (as defined in section 115) 
     or a Federal law enforcement officer (as defined in 115) the 
     offender shall be punished by a fine under this title and

[[Page H10098]]

     imprisonment for any term of years not less than 30, or for 
     life, or, if death results, may be sentenced to death.''.
       (b) Kidnapping.--Section 1201(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``If the 
     victim of the offense punishable under this subsection is a 
     United States judge (as defined in section 115) or a Federal 
     law enforcement officer (as defined in 115) the offender 
     shall be punished by a fine under this title and imprisonment 
     for any term of years not less than 30, or for life, or, if 
     death results, may be sentenced to death.''.

     SEC. 22. MEDIA COVERAGE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The right of the people of the United States to freedom 
     of speech, particularly as it relates to comment on 
     governmental activities, as protected by the first amendment 
     to the Constitution, cannot be meaningfully exercised without 
     the ability of the public to obtain facts and information 
     about the Government upon which to base their judgments 
     regarding important issues and events. As the United States 
     Supreme Court articulated in Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367 
     (1947), ``A trial is a public event. What transpires in the 
     court room is public property.''.
       (2) The right of the people of the United States to a free 
     press, with the ability to report on all aspects of the 
     conduct of the business of government, as protected by the 
     first amendment to the Constitution, cannot be meaningfully 
     exercised without the ability of the news media to gather 
     facts and information freely for dissemination to the public.
       (3) The right of the people of the United States to 
     petition the Government to redress grievances, particularly 
     as it relates to the manner in which the Government exercises 
     its legislative, executive, and judicial powers, as protected 
     by the first amendment to the Constitution, cannot be 
     meaningfully exercised without the availability to the public 
     of information about how the affairs of government are being 
     conducted. As the Supreme Court noted in Richmond Newspapers, 
     Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1980), ``People in an open 
     society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, 
     but it is difficult for them to accept what they are 
     prohibited from observing.''.
       (4) In the twenty-first century, the people of the United 
     States obtain information regarding judicial matters 
     involving the Constitution, civil rights, and other important 
     legal subjects principally through the print and electronic 
     media. Television, in particular, provides a degree of public 
     access to courtroom proceedings that more closely 
     approximates the ideal of actual physical presence than 
     newspaper coverage or still photography.
       (5) Providing statutory authority for the courts of the 
     United States to exercise their discretion in permitting 
     televised coverage of courtroom proceedings would enhance 
     significantly the access of the people to the Federal 
     judiciary.
       (6) Inasmuch as the first amendment to the Constitution 
     prevents Congress from abridging the ability of the people to 
     exercise their inherent rights to freedom of speech, to 
     freedom of the press, and to petition the Government for a 
     redress of grievances, it is good public policy for the 
     Congress affirmatively to facilitate the ability of the 
     people to exercise those rights.
       (7) The granting of such authority would assist in the 
     implementation of the constitutional guarantee of public 
     trials in criminal cases, as provided by the sixth amendment 
     to the Constitution. As the Supreme Court stated in In re 
     Oliver (1948), ``Whatever other benefits the guarantee to an 
     accused that his trial be conducted in public may confer upon 
     our society, the guarantee has always been recognized as a 
     safeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as 
     instruments of persecution. The knowledge that every criminal 
     trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of 
     public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of 
     judicial power.''.
       (b) Authority of Presiding Judge to Allow Media Coverage of 
     Court Proceedings.--
       (1) Authority of appellate courts.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the presiding judge of an appellate 
     court of the United States may, in his or her discretion, 
     permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, 
     or televising to the public of court proceedings over which 
     that judge presides.
       (2) Authority of district courts.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any presiding judge of a district court of the United 
     States may, in his or her discretion, permit the 
     photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or 
     televising to the public of court proceedings over which that 
     judge presides.
       (B) Obscuring of witnesses and jurors.--(i) Upon the 
     request of any witness (other than a party) or a juror in a 
     trial proceeding, the court shall order the face and voice of 
     the witness or juror (as the case may be) to be disguised or 
     otherwise obscured in such manner as to render the witness or 
     juror unrecognizable to the broadcast audience of the trial 
     proceeding.
       (ii) The presiding judge in a trial proceeding shall 
     inform--
       (I) each witness who is not a party that the witness has 
     the right to request that his or her image and voice be 
     obscured during the witness' testimony; and
       (II) each juror that the juror has the right to request 
     that his or her image be obscured during the trial 
     proceeding.
       (3) Advisory guidelines.--The Judicial Conference of the 
     United States is authorized to promulgate advisory guidelines 
     to which a presiding judge, in his or her discretion, may 
     refer in making decisions with respect to the management and 
     administration of photographing, recording, broadcasting, or 
     televising described in paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Presiding judge.--The term ``presiding judge'' means 
     the judge presiding over the court proceeding concerned. In 
     proceedings in which more than one judge participates, the 
     presiding judge shall be the senior active judge so 
     participating or, in the case of a circuit court of appeals, 
     the senior active circuit judge so participating, except 
     that--
       (A) in en banc sittings of any United States circuit court 
     of appeals, the presiding judge shall be the chief judge of 
     the circuit whenever the chief judge participates; and
       (B) in en banc sittings of the Supreme Court of the United 
     States, the presiding judge shall be the Chief Justice 
     whenever the Chief Justice participates.
       (2) Appellate court of the united states.--The term 
     ``appellate court of the United States'' means any United 
     States circuit court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the 
     United States.
       (d) Sunset.--The authority under subsection (b)(2) shall 
     terminate on the date that is 3 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 23. FUNDING FOR STATE COURTS TO ASSESS AND ENHANCE COURT 
                   SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, through the Office 
     of Justice Programs, shall make grants under this section to 
     the highest State courts in States participating in the 
     program, for the purpose of enabling such courts--
       (1) to conduct assessments focused on the essential 
     elements for effective courtroom safety and security 
     planning; and
       (2) to implement changes deemed necessary as a result of 
     the assessments.
       (b) Essential Elements.--As used in subsection (a)(1), the 
     essential elements include, but are not limited to--
       (1) operational security and standard operating procedures;
       (2) facility security planning and self-audit surveys of 
     court facilities;
       (3) emergency preparedness and response and continuity of 
     operations;
       (4) disaster recovery and the essential elements of a plan;
       (5) threat assessment;
       (6) incident reporting;
       (7) security equipment;
       (8) developing resources and building partnerships; and
       (9) new courthouse design.
       (c) Applications.--To be eligible for a grant under this 
     section, a highest State court shall submit to the Attorney 
     General an application at such time, in such form, and 
     including such information and assurances as the Attorney 
     General shall require.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

     SEC. 24. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR UNITED STATES MARSHALS 
                   SERVICE TO PROTECT THE JUDICIARY.

       In addition to any other amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for the United States Marshals Service, there 
     are authorized to be appropriated for the United States 
     Marshals Service to protect the judiciary, $20,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010 for--
       (1) hiring entry-level deputy marshals for providing 
     judicial security;
       (2) hiring senior-level deputy marshals for investigating 
     threats to the judiciary and providing protective details to 
     members of the judiciary and Assistant United States 
     Attorneys; and
       (3) for the Office of Protective Intelligence, for hiring 
     senior-level deputy marshals, hiring program analysts, and 
     providing secure computer systems.

     SEC. 25. GRANTS TO STATES FOR THREAT ASSESSMENT DATABASES.

       (a) In General.--From amounts made available to carry out 
     this section, the Attorney General shall carry out a program 
     under which the Attorney General makes grants to States for 
     use by the State to establish and maintain a threat 
     assessment database described in subsection (b).
       (b) Database.--For purposes of subsection (a), a threat 
     assessment database is a database through which a State can--
       (1) analyze trends and patterns in domestic terrorism and 
     crime;
       (2) project the probabilities that specific acts of 
     domestic terrorism or crime will occur; and
       (3) develop measures and procedures that can effectively 
     reduce the probabilities that those acts will occur.
       (c) Core Elements.--The Attorney General shall define a 
     core set of data elements to be used by each database funded 
     by this section so that the information in the database can 
     be effectively shared with other States and with the 
     Department of Justice.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.

     SEC. 26. GRANTS FOR YOUNG WITNESS ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
       (2) Juvenile.--The term ``juvenile'' means an individual 
     who is 17 years of age or younger.
       (3) Young adult.--The term ``young adult'' means an 
     individual who is between the ages of 18 and 21.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and 
     the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (b) Program Authorization.--The Director may make grants to 
     State and local prosecutors

[[Page H10099]]

     and law enforcement agencies in support of juvenile and young 
     adult witness assistance programs, including State and local 
     prosecutors and law enforcement agencies that have existing 
     juvenile and adult witness assistance programs.
       (c) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, State and local prosecutors and law enforcement 
     officials shall--
       (1) submit an application to the Director in such form and 
     containing such information as the Director may reasonably 
     require; and
       (2) give assurances that each applicant has developed, or 
     is in the process of developing, a witness assistance program 
     that specifically targets the unique needs of juvenile and 
     young adult witnesses and their families.
       (d) Use of Funds.--Grants made available under this section 
     may be used--
       (1) to assess the needs of juvenile and young adult 
     witnesses;
       (2) to develop appropriate program goals and objectives; 
     and
       (3) to develop and administer a variety of witness 
     assistance services, which includes--
       (A) counseling services to young witnesses dealing with 
     trauma associated in witnessing a violent crime;
       (B) pre- and post-trial assistance for the youth and their 
     family;
       (C) providing education services if the child is removed 
     from or changes their school for safety concerns;
       (D) protective services for young witnesses and their 
     families when a serious threat of harm from the perpetrators 
     or their associates is made; and
       (E) community outreach and school-based initiatives that 
     stimulate and maintain public awareness and support.
       (e) Reports.--
       (1) Report.--State and local prosecutors and law 
     enforcement agencies that receive funds under this section 
     shall submit to the Director a report not later than May 1st 
     of each year in which grants are made available under this 
     section. Reports shall describe progress achieved in carrying 
     out the purpose of this section.
       (2) Report to congress.--The Director shall submit to 
     Congress a report by July 1st of each year which contains a 
     detailed statement regarding grant awards, activities of 
     grant recipients, a compilation of statistical information 
     submitted by applicants, and an evaluation of programs 
     established under this section.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 109-279. 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.


              Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

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

       Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 109-279 offered by 
     Mr. Sensenbrenner:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2 as 
     subsection (b)(2)(C) of section 115 of title 18, United 
     States Code, after ``if death results'' insert ``and the 
     offender is prosecuted as a principal''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 4(a) as 
     section 1123(a) of title 18, United States Code, after ``if 
     death results'' insert ``and the offender is prosecuted as a 
     principal''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 18(a) as 
     subparagraph (C) of section 901(a)(3) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 insert after ``within 
     the State'' the following: ``or of an Indian tribe,''.
       In section 18(b), strike ``local unit of government'' and 
     insert ``unit of local government or Indian tribe'' and 
     strike ``State or unit'' each place it appears and insert 
     ``State, unit, or tribe''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 13(b)(3) 
     as paragraph (24) of section 604(a) of title 28, United 
     States Code, strike ``, and inform'' and all that follows 
     through ``requirements''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 540, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this manager's amendment to clarify that 
offenders who attempt to murder or conspire to murder a Federal judge, 
Federal law enforcement officer, or a federally funded public safety 
officer are subject to a penalty of life imprisonment. If death 
results, the death penalty can be applied to offenders who are 
principals.
  In addition, the amendment adds Indian tribes as eligible entities 
for court security grants in section 18 of the bill.
  Finally, the amendment clarifies the language as to the coordination 
between the Marshals Service and the Administrative Office on security 
issues. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to this important 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is 
clarifying in nature, and I have no objection. I am not aware of any 
objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

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

       Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-279 offered by 
     Mr. Scott of Virginia:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2 as a 
     subsection (b)(2)(A)(ii) of section 115 of title 18, United 
     States Code, strike ``and a term of imprisonment'' and all 
     that follows through ``10 years'' and insert ``or a term of 
     imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2 as a 
     subsection (b)(2)(A)(iii) of section 115 of title 18, United 
     States Code, strike ``and a term of imprisonment'' and all 
     that follows through ``12 years'' and insert ``or a term of 
     imprisonment for not more than 30 years, or both''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2 as a 
     subsection (b)(2)(A)(iv) of section 115 of title 18, United 
     States Code, strike ``and a term of imprisonment'' and all 
     that follows through ``30 years'' and insert ``or a term of 
     imprisonment for not more than 40 years, or both''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2 as a 
     subsection (b)(2)(B), strike ``not less than 30''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2 as a 
     subsection (b)(2)(C), strike ``not less than 30''.
        In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2 as a 
     subsection (b)(2)(D) of section 115 of title 18, United 
     States Code, strike ``and imprisonment'' and all that follows 
     through ``10 years'' and insert ``or imprisonment for not 
     more than 20 years, or both''.
        In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2 as a 
     subsection (b)(2)(E) of section 115 of title 18, United 
     States Code, strike ``5 years'' and insert ``not more than 10 
     years''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 3(b) as a 
     subsection (c)(1)(B) of section 111 of title 18, United 
     States Code, strike ``not less'' and all that follows through 
     ``10 years'' and insert ``not more than 20 years''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 3(b) as a 
     subsection (c)(1)(C) of section 111 of title 18, United 
     States Code, strike ``not less'' and all that follows through 
     ``12 years'' and insert ``not more than 30 years''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 3(b) as a 
     subsection (c)(1)(D) of section 111 of title 18, United 
     States Code, strike ``not less'' and all that follows through 
     ``30 years'' and insert ``not more than 40 years''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 3(b) as a 
     subsection (c)(2) of section 111 of title 18, United States 
     Code, strike ``5 years'' and insert ``not more than 10 
     years''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 20(a) as a 
     section 1075 of title 18, United States Code, strike ``not 
     less than 10'' and insert ``not more than 20''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 21(a) as a 
     subsection (b) of section 1114 of title 18, United States 
     Code, strike ``and imprisonment'' and all that follows 
     through ``or for life'' and insert ``or imprisonment for any 
     term of years, or for life, or both''.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 21(b) in 
     section 1201(a) of title 18, United States Code, strike ``and 
     imprisonment'' and all that follows through ``or for life'' 
     and insert ``or imprisonment for any term of years, or for 
     life, or both''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 540, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates the mandatory minimum 
sentences in the bill and replaces them with increases in maximum 
sentences

[[Page H10100]]

for which a defendant can be sentenced. This is not a soft-on-crime 
amendment but a sensible-on-crime amendment. In each instance in which 
it eliminates a mandatory minimum sentence, it raises the maximum term 
to which an offender can be sentenced, except in situations where they 
can already get life.
  With the higher maximums, offenders who deserve it can be sentenced 
to even greater sentences than the bill allows. But those who are bit 
players in an offense or those who do not deserve as much time as 
ringleaders, do not have to be sentenced to that time anyway. What 
sense does it make to sentence an offender to more time than anyone 
believes they deserve? That is an inevitable result of mandatory 
minimum sentencing.
  The notion that we have to have mandatory minimum sentences to force 
judges to sentence those who kill, injure or threaten judges or their 
families or others associated with the courts is obviously absurd. 
Judges have not asked for mandatory minimum sentences as a protection 
for themselves and their families. Indeed, they have asked for just the 
opposite.
  Having the experience of sentencing people on an ongoing basis, 
judges see the differences in activities, roles, backgrounds of the 
offenders of crime. They know it makes no sense to sentence just on the 
basis of the name of the crime rather than on the basis of the facts 
and circumstances of the crime and the level of involvement and 
background of the offenders. Having heard all the facts and 
circumstances in the case, they are in a much better position to 
sentence offenders than Congress is in sentencing offenders with no 
knowledge of the individual case.
  To ensure a systemic approach in sentencing like offenders in a 
similar manner, we have created the Sentencing Commission and the 
sentencing guideline system. By increasing the maximums, we signal to 
the Sentencing Commission to consider increasing the guideline 
minimums, which they characteristically do when we make such 
suggestions. The sentencing statistics do not establish that the courts 
have not followed the guidelines, especially when you take into account 
that most of the deviations result from government motions, or 
acquiescences in sentences, and guideline-sanctioned departures. 
Sentencing is not an exact science and should not be held to rigid 
statistical measurements.
  Some have suggested that mandatory minimum sentencing is necessary 
because of recent Supreme Court decisions that prevent sentencing 
increases based on factors not established at the trial. Yet, their 
positions on mandatory minimum sentences appear to be no different 
before those cases were decided.
  Mandatory minimums have been studied and have been found to disrupt 
an orderly sentencing scheme, to be discriminatory against minorities, 
to waste the taxpayers' money when compared to traditional sentencing 
where individual roles and culpability can be taken into account. If we 
do not trust judges to sentence offenders sufficient in other cases, 
the one instance where we should be able to trust judges is in the case 
where the charge is murder, injury, or threats to judges.
  Certainly, Mr. Chairman, mandatory minimums are not indicated in this 
bill, so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and remove the 
mandatory minimums from the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Scott amendment. It strips 
all of the mandatory minimum penalties out of the bill.
  The amendment seeks to strip the core provisions of the bill. Let me 
remind everyone of the nature of the problem we face today. More than 
57,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in 2003, or one in every 
10 officers serving in the United States. The numbers have been 
increasing since 1999, even as every other crime has decreased or held 
steady.
  The Executive Director of the Fraternal Order of Police noted 
recently ``There is less respect for authority in general and police 
officers specifically. The predisposition of criminals to use firearms 
is probably at the highest point of our history.''
  The secure access proposal addresses this problem by sending a 
message of deterrence. The existing penalty for assaulting a law 
enforcement officer is 8 years, 15 if with a weapon. Under current 
criminal law, a false statement made to an FBI agent in a terrorism 
investigation carries the same penalty as a violent assault of a police 
officer.
  Federal, State, and local judges have suffered from rising threats, 
and deadly attacks have been directed against judges as well as 
courthouse participants.

                              {time}  1645

  According to the Administrative Office of United States Courts, there 
are almost 700 threats made a year against Federal judges, and in 
numerous cases Federal judges have had security details assigned to 
them for fear of attack by members of terrorist organizations, violent 
gangs, and disgruntled litigants.
  H.R. 1751 provides a reasonable penalty structure for assaults 
against judges, prosecutors and public safety officers, as well as 
members of their families. The bill adopts a penalty structure 
requiring 1 to 10 years for an assault that results in bodily injury, 
such as a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, disfigurement, pain or illness; 
3 to 12 years for substantial bodily injury, temporary but substantial 
disfigurement, temporary but substantial loss or impairment; and 10 to 
30 years for serious bodily injury, substantial risk of death, extreme 
physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss 
or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ or mental 
faculty.
  These penalties roughly correspond to existing guideline ranges and 
simply ensure that Federal judges impose the required penalty, but can 
exercise discretion to a higher penalty if warranted.
  Law enforcement officers deserve our fullest protection, brazen 
criminals show less and less regard for the police and the hard work 
that they do. Our message is simple: If you attack a police officer or 
kill a police officer, you will be going to jail for a long time.
  As revised, the mandatory minimums are commensurate with existing 
Federal sentencing guidelines, but in the absence of a mandatory 
minimum guideline system, there is too much at risk to leave the 
sentencing to judges who have already demonstrated their willingness to 
depart from the guidelines when presented with a case.
  Mandatory minimum penalties are effective for ensuring consistency in 
sentencing. Since the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. 
Booker, judges now have virtually unlimited discretion to ignore the 
Federal sentencing guidelines and impose whatever sentence they like, 
all to the detriment of public safety and fairness and sentencing 
through consistent and clear punishment schemes. Judges are now 
completely unaccountable.
  Congress has a duty to set sentencing policies for Federal crimes and 
to make sure that judges impose such sentences. Unfortunately, that has 
not been the experience since the Booker decision. Once freed from 
mandatory sentencing schemes, Federal judges are now starting to ignore 
the guidelines: In one of every 10 criminal cases, they are imposing 
sentences below the previously mandated guideline range.
  In a recently released report, the Sentencing Commission data 
confirmed that this trend is continuing, and specifically broke out 
such data by circuits, which showed that judges in the Second and Ninth 
Circuits followed the guideline ranges in imposing sentences in a 
substantially lower percentage than the other circuits. Sentences now 
for similar crimes are being handed in disparate fashion, depending on 
the region where the offense occurs. This is not equal justice under 
the law in the Federal system.
  Those judges, when they go to the Supreme Court, ought to look at the 
motto that is underneath the roof of the Court at the main entrance 
when they walk in. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

[[Page H10101]]

  The amendment was rejected.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

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

       Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 109-279 offered by 
     Mr. Scott of Virginia:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 4 as 
     section 1123(a) of title 18, United States Code, strike 
     ``shall be punished'' and all that follows through ``death'' 
     and insert ``shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 
     for any term or years or for life, or both''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 540, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate the expansion of the 
Federal death penalty jurisdiction on the basis of any portion of the 
salary of a State or local official being covered with Federal funds. 
That means they could be eligible for a Federal death penalty. The 
notion that the Federal Government has to replace the States and 
localities in murder prosecutions against those who would murder a 
State judge or others associated with a judge or courts is absurd.
  States have shown themselves quite capable of prosecuting murder 
cases and in obtaining death penalties where applicable. They have done 
far more of it, frankly, than the Federal Government, so there is no 
indication that this raw extension of Federal power is necessary or 
even desired. If a State has chosen to represent the will of its 
citizens by not authorizing a death penalty, why should Congress step 
in and impose it in spite of the State's public policy choice?
  The States certainly have not asked that we add a Federal death 
penalty to apply to the murder of federally funded State or local 
officials. And there is no evidence that the kind of people who would 
kill or plot to kill a State court judge or other officials may be 
deterred by a Federal death penalty.
  The public is clearly rethinking the appropriateness of the death 
penalty, in general, due to the evidence that it is ineffective in 
deterring crime, that it is racially discriminatory, and found more 
often than not to be erroneously applied.
  A 23-year comprehensive study of the death penalty found that the 
death penalty had been erroneously applied 68 percent of the time. So 
it is not surprising that over 120 people sentenced to death over the 
last 10 years have been released from death row, having been completely 
exonerated of the crimes for which they are convicted or otherwise 
found to be not guilty.
  Nor is it surprising that with such a sorry record of death penalty 
administration, that several States have abolished the death penalty or 
placed moratoriums on the applications of their death penalty while 
studies are being conducted, and why some, while they have it on the 
books, have not applied it in many years.
  In recognition of the problems States and localities were having with 
administering the death penalty, Congress adopted the Innocence 
Protection Act just a few years ago. It provides funding to State and 
local entities to help ensure that there is competent counsel at all 
parts of the trial.
  Mr. Chairman, during committee deliberations of the death penalty, we 
heard references to econometric research of economist Joanna M. 
Shepherd. I want to point out, more recently, she has done further 
analysis in elaboration of her research and found, in terms of 
deterring murders, executions deter murders in six States, have no 
effect on murders in eight States, and increased murders in 13 States.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that the death penalty is arbitrarily 
applied, it is discriminatory and we make mistakes, I would hope that 
we would delete the death penalty from this bill by adopting the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to the Scott amendment which eliminates the 
death penalty for the killing of a federally funded public safety 
officer, such as a judge, police officer, firefighter, prosecutor, or a 
family member of a public safety officer.
  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 52 law enforcement 
officers were feloniously killed in the United States in 2003 and 56 
officers were killed in the previous year.
  In the 10-year period from 1994 through 2003, a total of 616 law 
enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in the 
United States, 100 of whom were killed in ambush situations, entrapment 
or premeditated situations. If not for the advent of bulletproof vests, 
an additional 400 officers would have been killed over the last decade, 
except for the fact that they were wearing protective armor.
  Of those responsible for killing police officers between 1994 and 
2003, 521 had a prior criminal arrest, including 153 who had a prior 
arrest for assaulting a police officer or resisting arrest, 264 for a 
crime of violence, 230 for a weapons violation, and 23 for murder.
  Recent events include the killing of an individual with a grenade in 
the Seattle Federal courthouse; the killing of Judge Roland Barnes, his 
deputy sheriff and a Federal agent in Atlanta; the murders of Federal 
Judge Lefkow's husband and mother; and the murders immediately outside 
the Tyler, Texas, courthouse.
  These recent attacks follow on the heels of the 1998 bombing of 
Circuit Judge Robert Vance in the 11th Circuit; the 1998 shooting of 
Judge Daronoco; and the 1979 shooting of Judge Wood outside his San 
Antonio home.
  According to the Administrative Office, there are almost 700 threats 
a year made against Federal judges, and security detail have had to be 
assigned to those Federal judges because of the threats of attacks.
  The Secure Access bill authorizes, but does not require prosecution 
of federally funded State and local judges and first responders if 
there is a threat or an assault against them.
  First, jurisdiction only exists when it involves Federal funding and 
protection of Federal investment.
  Second, under current Federal law, the Department of Justice pays 
survivor benefits to families of first responders who are killed in the 
line of duty. The Federal interest in minimizing these assaults and 
murders is obvious and cost-saving.
  The intent underlying this provision is to authorize Federal 
prosecution after State and local prosecutors and Federal prosecutors 
determine where such prosecution would best be brought. Some States do 
not have a death penalty and Federal prosecution of a cop killer may be 
warranted. Federal prosecution may be advantageous over State or local 
prosecutions for a variety of reasons, such as laws relating to 
evidence, statute of limitations, or other reasons.
  The provisions do not require Federal prosecution, but only add 
another tool in the arsenal to protect law enforcement officers, 
judges, and other courthouse personnel.
  The need for a swift and effective death penalty is significant in 
the case of violent offenders who assault and kill law enforcement 
officers, judges and witnesses. Several scientifically valid 
statistical studies that examine a period of years and control for 
national trends consistently show that capital punishment is a 
substantial deterrent and saves lives. Recent estimates show that each 
execution deters 18 murders.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cuellar

  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H10102]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-279 offered by 
     Mr. Cuellar:
       Section 11(c) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragragraph (3) the following:
       (4) shares an international border and faces a demonstrable 
     threat from cross border crime and violence.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 540, 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is an amendment that adds a category of 
preferential consideration for witness protection grants for 
jurisdictions that share an international border and face a threat from 
cross-border crime.
  Basically, this would allow the border prosecutors an opportunity to 
protect the witness that sometimes fears that they might get a threat 
from international cross-border threats. I believe this amendment is 
acceptable to Chairman Sensenbrenner.
  Mr. Chairman, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers, 
Congressman Scott, thank you for this opportunity to offer my amendment 
to H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 
2005.
  Crime and violence along the US-Mexico border presents unique 
challenges to the law enforcement community. Border crimes can be 
especially difficult to prosecute: a witness to a crime along the 
border may be hesitant to testify if he or she fears it is related to 
criminal activity across the border in another country.
  The Cuellar amendment is simple; it adds a category of preferential 
consideration for witness protection grants for jurisdictions that 
share an international border and face a demonstrable threat from 
cross-border crime. This category will benefit such jurisdictions that 
choose to apply for witness protection grants.
  We must provide prosecutors every means possible to adjudicate crimes 
along the border, and giving them preferential consideration for 
witness protection grants will help that goal.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a very good 
amendment. It is not acceptable, but it is something that I 
enthusiastically support.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
very wise amendment. He comes from a region that has suffered an 
enormous amount of border violence. But his local officials, in working 
with the gentleman, has brought this to the Nation's attention.
  This amendment will protect witnesses who I think are the crux of 
solving some of these heinous crimes. I have supported amendments such 
as this, which include language in legislation that I have which deals 
with rewarding informants in order to get them to tell the facts that 
would allow for busting drug cartels and others who are perpetrating 
violence. This is a wise amendment, and I am happy to support it.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the work she 
has done.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-279 offered by 
     Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       In section 25, strike subsection (a) and insert the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--The Attorney General, through the Office 
     of Justice Programs, shall make grants under this section to 
     the highest State courts in States participating in the 
     program, for the purpose of enabling such courts to establish 
     and maintain a threat assessment database described in 
     subsection (b).''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 540, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman of the full 
committee and the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee 
to allow the amendment that I secured that has to do with providing 
courts the opportunity to establish a threat assessment database 
similar to that of U.S. Marshals.

                              {time}  1700

  This provides our courts hands-on immediate information in order to 
determine the threats that are waged against these particular courts. 
This simple amendment, rather than include the attorney, in essence, 
the change of this amendment would require the Attorney General to work 
through the Office of Justice Programs to make grants to the highest 
State courts in States participating in the Threat Assessment Database 
program.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. It makes a 
technical change to section 25 of the bill, and it broadens the 
eligibility for grants. I think it is a good amendment and urge the 
committee to adopt it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the distinguished chairman for his support.
  Let me conclude by simply saying again I remind colleagues I hope 
that some day we will be able to discuss the Good Time Early Relief 
bill that speaks to the question of individuals languishing in Federal 
prisons who have been nonviolent and would welcome this discussion and 
this legislation.
  I am grateful for this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1751, the Secure 
Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005. Before doing so, I 
want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the House 
Judiciary Committee for their efforts on this bill. Let me briefly 
explain the thrust of my amendment. This amendment is only a small 
technical change to my original amendment that was adopted during the 
Full Committee Markup last week. In essence, the change would require 
the Attorney General to work, through the Office of Justice Programs, 
to make grants to the highest State courts in States participating in 
the threat assessment database program.
  The rationale for changing the language to make State Supreme Courts 
eligible for receiving grants for the creation of a threat assessment 
database is that the State courts are on the ground and have the best 
understanding of what type of threats are out there and where they are 
coming from. In addition:
  The Department of Justice has interpreted language giving ``grants to 
States'' as going directly to State executives (Governors) and they 
have sometimes bypassed the State courts.
  The State court administrating agencies (led by the State supreme 
courts) are in a better position to know about the kind of threats and 
attacks they experience in a given year.
  The State court administrating agencies are in a better position to 
know how to respond to attacks and develop procedures to counter 
threats to the State courts.
  If the grants go to the State executive, there is a chance that money 
expended under this program will go to another part of the State budget 
such as roads or education, not court security.
  I respectfully request that my amendment be made in order.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H10103]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 109-279 offered by 
     Mr. Filner:
       Section 26(d)(3) is amended
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs ``(D)'' and ``(E)''as 
     subparagraphs ``(E)'' and ``(F)'', respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) support for young witnesses who are trying to leave a 
     criminal gang and information to prevent initial gang 
     recruitment.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 540, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and the Rules Committee for allowing 
this amendment to proceed. There is a very good section of the bill 
talking about grants for young witness assistance, and I think when we 
talk about that, as the bill does, very importantly, we also must 
explicitly talk about gangs because we know that youth witness 
intimidation generally comes at the hands of criminal gangs. So my 
amendment adds language to this section that provides for this bill to 
allow the use of witness protection grants by youths who are trying to 
leave a criminal gang or to prevent initial gang recruitment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support this 
amendment. I think it plugs a hole in the original bill, and we 
certainly want to do whatever we can to prevent people from going into 
gangs and from being threatened if they are witnesses and are sworn to 
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in criminal 
trials involving gang members.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I am here to support the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner) and his amendment to H.R. 1751. I would like to 
thank the chair for accepting that amendment.
  What he is trying to do is to help that young person extricate him or 
herself and let the courts and law enforcement know aspects of gang 
crime that are key in convicting our most dangerous criminals on the 
streets.
  In my district I think we have exported gang activities around the 
country and maybe even around the world, South Central Los Angeles. So 
as a result, I started a series of youth violence summits with 
intervention specialists, educators, counselors, and the youth 
themselves. And one clear message that has resonated amongst all of 
them is the dire need to promise our youth that if they are involved in 
gang activity and remove themselves, they will not be harmed or killed 
by the very gang that they wisely ostracize themselves from.
  So this amendment clearly provides much-needed witness protection for 
our youth who are fearful of leaving a gang and who will come forward 
to testify about the inner workings of these gangs.
  So I thank the gentleman very much for recognizing that we need to 
have options for the young people that are trying to be responsible in 
the process. And we are going to come back next year with a 
comprehensive bill because we have been studying this issue, working 
with it for the last 20 years; and I thank Mr. Filner and Mr. 
Sensenbrenner so much for recognizing the need to have these programs.
  Mr. FILNER. If I may conclude, Mr. Chairman, according to the past 
president of the National District Attorneys Association, Mr. Robert P. 
McCullough, he said that ``prosecutors across the country believe that 
the issue of witness intimidation is the single biggest hurdle facing 
any successful gang prosecution.''
  So I appreciate the chairman's acceptance of this amendment. I look 
forward to these grants helping our young people avoid gangs or at 
least avoid intimidation.
  I believe when you talk about witness assistance programs for 
children, which this bill does, you have to talk about gangs because as 
many know youth witness intimidation generally comes at the hand of 
criminal gangs.
  My amendment adds language to the witness protection grants provided 
in this bill to allow their use by youths who are trying to leave a 
criminal gang or to prevent initial gang recruitment.
  Unfortunately, my district like many others across the country has a 
problem with gangs, which is why I introduced this amendment.
  In San Diego, police department records count no fewer than 3,750 
gang members on the street. Most are young--pre-teens to mid-20s. 
During the first six months of this year, gang violence resulted in 
eight homicides in San Diego, nearly a third of the total of 23.
  However, don't let these statistics mislead you, gang violence is not 
limited to California and or big urban areas--that might have been true 
a while ago but it is no longer the case today. While big cities still 
have the majority of gangs their tentacles reach out from the cities 
into every aspect of our society. For example, Mara Salvatrucha, also 
known as MS-13, has grown from a gang that once numbered a few thousand 
and was involved in street violence and turf battles in Southern 
California into a gang that operates in at least 33 states, with an 
international membership in the hundreds of thousands.
  Three thousand jurisdictions across the U.S. are estimated to have 
had gang activity in 2001. In 2002, 32% of cities with a population of 
25 to 50 thousand reported a gang-related homicide. Furthermore, it is 
estimated that there are 840,000 active gang members in the U.S. 
operating in every state of the Union.
  These gangs are effective because they bind their members to loyalty 
and create fear throughout the community in which they operate. This 
fear, most noticeable in children, prevents residents from cooperating 
with law enforcement officials and testifying against gang members. My 
amendment, while not a panacea for the gang problem, is a step in the 
right direction. It provides support to prevent initial gang 
recruitment and helps those young witnesses who are trying to leave 
criminal gangs. Passage of my amendment will decrease youth witness 
intimidation by gangs and as a result lead to improved prosecution of 
gang members.
  According to the past president of the National District Attorneys 
Association, Robert P. McCullough, ``prosecutors across the country 
believe that the issue of witness intimidation is the single biggest 
hurdle facing any successful gang prosecution.'' I could not agree with 
him more, which is why I am urging you to support my amendment.
  Finally, as a matter of clarification, my amendment does not 
``require'' states to provide such criminal gang witness assistance to 
be eligible for young adult witness assistance grants.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Weiner

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

       Amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 109-279 offered by 
     Mr. Weiner:
       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC.   . STATE AND LOCAL COURT ELIGIBILITY.

       (a) Bureau Grants.--Section 302(c)(1) of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3732(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``State and local 
     courts,'' after ``contracts with''.
       (b) Edward Bryne Grants.--
       (1) Formula grants.--Section 501 of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751) 
     is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``and units of local 
     government'' and inserting ``, units of local government, and 
     State and local courts''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``, State and local 
     courts,'' after ``use by States''.
       (2) Discretionary grants.--Section 510(a) of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3760(a)) is amended by inserting ``, State and local 
     courts,'' after ``private agencies,''.
       (c) Armor Vests.--Section 2501 of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (3796ii) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``State and local 
     court,'' after ``local,''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``State and local 
     court'' after ``government,''.
       (d) Child Abuse Prevention.--Section 105 of the Child Abuse 
     Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``STATE AND LOCAL 
     COURTS,'' after ``AGENCIES'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and State and local 
     courts'' after ``such agencies or organizations)''; and
       (3) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``and State and 
     local courts'' after ``organizations''.


[[Page H10104]]


  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 540, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a technical amendment that fixes an oversight in the bill 
that left out four programs that would be helpful for courts, court 
officers, and court security personnel to take advantage of: the 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program; the Byrne Memorial State 
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Discretionary Grant program; the 
Assistance for Children's Justice Act, CJA, grants; and State Justice 
Statistics program for Statistical Analysis Centers.
  These four grant programs, I think, the authors of the bill, Mr. 
Gohmert, myself and members of the committee, had intended to be 
available to courts as a result of this bill, and this amendment would 
include those.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
to me.
  The gentleman from New York is absolutely correct in that there was 
an oversight in that State and local courts would not be eligible for 
the four grant programs that the gentleman outlined in his remarks. 
This amendment corrects the oversight, and I am happy to support it and 
hope that the committee adopts it.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
for his support.
  For the balance my time here, I do want to point out one other 
provision that has gone largely unnoticed, but is a very important part 
of this bill.
  I have beside me, and it is difficult to read from afar and, frankly, 
it is difficult to even read from up close, a Web site that distributes 
the personal information about judges, police officers, elected 
officials, and the like. This Web site, and we have obviously obscured 
the URL, goes so far as to talk about the comings and goings of 
undercover officers in New York City. It provides sensitive details of 
about 79 different officers, things such as what type of car they 
drive, things about what the comings and goings of their families are, 
personal habits. This is an example where we find the matrix, or 
perhaps I would call it the conflict, of the virtues of the Internet, 
how it is a place to bring information far and wide and the ability to 
use the Internet for what is in this case a very pernicious, mean-
spirited, and perhaps deadly cause.
  We know from the examples we have had judges' families stalked based 
on information the criminals were able to find on the Internet. In this 
bill we essentially incorporate H.R. 1710, the Internet Police 
Protection Act, that I offered. It becomes section 18 of this bill. 
What it says is there is a lot of publicly accessible information about 
judges; there is a lot of publicly accessible information about police 
officers. If someone wants to, if they really want to harass or harm a 
police officer or a judge, we should not allow the Internet to be used 
as a repository for information like that.
  I am someone who spends a great deal of time as a member of the 
Judiciary Committee and a Member of this House fighting for the rights 
of people to free speech. I know there are going to be things on the 
Internet that are troubling to us, and we are always going to be in a 
tug and a push to try to figure out where we draw the line.
  In this case, the line clearly gets drawn in the following place: if 
people are going to use the Internet to harass, intimidate, or harm law 
enforcement personnel, to harm court officers, to harm judges, then 
they should be illegal. This makes the test very simple. If they simply 
compile the database and a police officer's name happens to be on it 
with no intention of ill will, then obviously this would not make that 
illegal. But if it is clear that they are compiling a Web site like 
this one, which starts out, I should point out, the very first line 
says: ``Welcome to this legal, noncriminal Web site which provides 
publicly available information about NYPD, New York City Police 
Department, officers. This page is this Web site's most visited page,'' 
and it goes on to talk about how the information that was gathered was 
gathered in a lawful way. That is probably right. But it should be 
illegal. This is just the type of harassment tool, and perhaps even 
worse, that we need to keep off of the Internet.
  I also draw another distinction, Mr. Chairman. When one is an elected 
official, a public official, their comings and goings are going to be 
more public than others. That is part of the cost of doing business. 
Any information about where a Congressman shows up obviously is not 
going to be covered by this legislation. But if one is a police 
officer, if one is an undercover police officer, imagine what it feels 
like to go home after a hard day at work dealing with some very bad 
people and find information about their comings and goings posted on a 
Web page.
  This bill, the Court Protection Act, is going to make that illegal, 
as it should. And there may be tests that we have to figure out where 
the line gets drawn. Courts have come down in different places, but one 
thing we know: threatening speech is not protected speech. Speech that 
endangers someone's livelihood, endangers someone's life is not 
protected speech, and this provision in the Court Security Act will 
make that abundantly clear.
  I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Weiner amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

       Amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 109-279 offered by 
     Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. ___. AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS TO 
                   CARRY FIREARMS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 203 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 3053 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3054. Authority of Federal judges and prosecutors to 
       carry firearms

       ``Any justice of the United States or judge of the United 
     States (as defined in section 451 of title 28), any judge of 
     a court created under article I of the United States 
     Constitution, any bankruptcy judge, any magistrate judge, any 
     United States attorney, and any other officer or employee of 
     the Department of Justice whose duties include representing 
     the United States in a court of law, may carry firearms, 
     subject to such regulations as the Attorney General shall 
     prescribe. Such regulations shall provide for training and 
     regular certification in the use of firearms and shall, with 
     respect to justices, judges, bankruptcy judges, and 
     magistrate judges, be prescribed after consultation with the 
     Judicial Conference of the United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 3053 the following:

``3054. Authority of Federal judges and prosecutors to carry 
              firearms.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 540, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Mr. 
Gohmert for bringing this underlying bill to the floor, H.R. 1751.
  My amendment specifically addresses the problem of violence in and 
around Federal courthouses. The amendment authorizes any Federal judge, 
magistrate, United States Attorney, or any other officer of the 
Department of Justice who represents the U.S. in a court of law to 
carry firearms. They would be subject to training and regulation as 
prescribed by the Attorney General.
  Currently, a number of States permit State prosecutors to carry 
firearms. However, this right is not extended to all Federal 
prosecutors and Federal judges. My amendment would allow both Federal 
judges and Federal prosecutors to carry firearms for their and their 
families' protection and provide for training and regular 
certification.
  The need for my amendment was made clear by the recent tragedies 
involving, and we have heard the chairman speak to these issues, the 
brutal

[[Page H10105]]

murder of family members of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow; the 
slaying of Judge Rowland Barnes, his court reporter, deputy sheriff, 
and a Federal officer in Atlanta; the cold-blooded shootings outside 
the Tyler, Texas courthouse, among others. These situations underscore 
the importance of security for judges and prosecutors.
  There is a significant need to allow judges and U.S. Attorneys to 
carry firearms because threats and dangerous assaults upon them are 
steadily increasing. By virtue of their positions, United States judges 
and prosecutors are high-profile targets. They and their families have 
often been victims of violent crimes, murder, and threats to their 
personal safety.
  United States judges, justices, and U.S. Attorneys bravely serve the 
people of the United States of America. They prosecute our most 
serious, sophisticated, and violent offenders. These offenders range 
from international terrorists to armed career criminals.
  Protecting the courthouse is important, Mr. Chairman, but the 
courthouse is just a building. This amendment is designed to provide 
meaningful protection to the actual person and his or her family. My 
amendment extends protection from the courthouse to the homes in the 
areas where the judges and prosecutors live.
  Our Nation relies and depends upon the sound and unintimidated 
judgment of these dedicated public servants. We owe them every 
reasonable tool to protect themselves and their families. This includes 
the right to carry an effective personal security tool.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim 
the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from 
Iowa would respond to a couple of questions. I would ask the gentleman 
whether or not this applies to Federal officials only; we are not 
imposing this on State officials.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it applies only to Federal 
officials who will represent the United States of America in a court of 
law, the voice of the Federal Government in a court of law.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, also, did 
the Federal officials ask for this new power?
  I yield to the gentleman.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, on that specific question, I cannot 
answer ``yes'' to or ``no'' to. I am working with a piece of language I 
believe in, and I have not looked a Federal official in the eye that 
specifically asked me.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my 
understanding that this was in fact their request, in fact, their 
number one request. Does the gentleman have any evidence or know 
anything contrary to that?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I have been informed that, yes, we have Federal 
officials that have asked for this legislation. I would point out that 
it is not mandatory that they accept carrying a firearm; it is their 
option that they exercise under the regulation provided by the Attorney 
General.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, I would finally ask, is 
this the right to carry, subject to training and regulation prescribed 
by the Attorney General? I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. It is subject to training and regulation as 
prescribed by the Attorney General.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. 
I support the amendment as well, and I understand why Federal officials 
who are designating the amendment would feel a need for this. As long 
as it is optional and as long as it requires training and 
certification, I think that this is an appropriate thing, to empower 
those Federal officials designated who feel the need to carry a firearm 
to be able to do so.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 3 Offered by Scott of Virginia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97, 
noes 325, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 583]

                                AYES--97

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                               NOES--325

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui

[[Page H10106]]


     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Boswell
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Conaway
     Davis (FL)
     Hastings (FL)
     Norwood
     Pence
     Sessions
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1745

  Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, GARRETT of New Jersey, GARY G. MILLER 
of California, RYAN of Wisconsin, McCAUL of Texas, MORAN of Virginia, 
BUTTERFIELD, UDALL of New Mexico, Ms. HARRIS, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of 
Florida, Ms. DeLAURO and Ms. MATSUI changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado and Ms. SOLIS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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 CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, 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. 1751) to amend 
title 18, United States Code, to protect judges, prosecutors, 
witnesses, victims, and their family members, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 540, 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. Higgins

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

       Mr. Higgins moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1751 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:

       Insert at the appropriate place the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION OF PROFITEERING AND FRAUD IN CONNECTION 
                   WITH MILITARY ACTIONS AND DISASTER RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 63 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1351. Profiteering and fraud in connection with 
       military actions and disaster relief

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Whoever, directly or indirectly, in any 
     matter involving a contract with the Federal Government or 
     the provision of goods or services to or on behalf of the 
     Federal Government, in connection with military action, or 
     relief or reconstruction activities in Iraq or Afghanistan or 
     any other foreign country, or relief or reconstruction 
     efforts provided in response to a major disaster declaration 
     under section 401 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, or an 
     emergency declaration under section 501 of the Disaster 
     Relief Act of 1974, knowingly and willfully--
       ``(1) executes or attempts to execute a scheme or artifice 
     to defraud the United States;
       ``(2) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, 
     scheme, or device a material fact;
       ``(3) 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
       ``(4) materially overvalues any good or service with the 
     specific intent to excessively profit from the federal 
     disaster or emergency;

     shall be fined under subsection (b), imprisoned not more than 
     30 years, or both.
       ``(b) Fine.--A person convicted of an offense under 
     subsection (a) may be fined the greater of--
       ``(1) $1,000,000; or
       ``(2) if such person derives profits or other proceeds from 
     the offense, not more than 3 times the gross profits or other 
     proceeds.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1351. Profiteering and fraud in connection with military actions and 
              disaster relief.''.

  Mr. HIGGINS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the 
majority was recently, within the last 2 or 3 minutes, given a copy of 
this motion to recommit. This comes as a complete surprise. This is not 
the way to legislate, Mr. Speaker. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue the reading.
  The Clerk continued to read the motion to recommit.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RANGEL (during the reading). Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have no idea as to what the objection was 
raised to. The House was not in order when the gentleman was speaking. 
The House has no way to know as to what objection he raised.
  Is it possible for the Chair to edify the House as to why the 
objection was made to dispensing with the reading?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin objected to the 
dispensing of the reading.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry was, could the 
Chair share with us the reason given by the distinguished objector?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. An objection has already been heard.
  Mr. RANGEL. I cannot hear the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. An objection has been heard.
  The Clerk will continue reading the motion.
  The Clerk continued reading the motion to recommit.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the further reading of the motion to recommit be dispensed 
with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, when this Nation has been hit with 
terrorist attacks or national disasters, America has always responded 
with a strong, decisive, generous spirit. Four years ago on September 
11, 2001, without warning, like missiles from hell, two planes filled 
with the most innocent of victims slammed into the World Trade Center's 
twin towers, 3,000 dead seemingly in an instant. America's response was 
quick, decisive and powerful.

[[Page H10107]]

  On that day, we as Americans took a hit, but we stood united and we 
responded with confidence, blue States and red States, suburban and 
urban, black and white, rich and poor, together, united. Everyone 
suffered equally and resolved collectively to rebuild, to sacrifice, to 
reaffirm boldly what the scum terrorists had tried to destroy. People 
reached deep within themselves and from the collective heart a 
supremely compassionate response for and from the ages, a source of 
national pride forever. Confidence in public officials and institutions 
soared.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we are a nation that is stumbling. We have lost 
our confident and compassionate way. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, 
the Federal Government's response was slow and sluggish, sloppy and 
uneven. No one took responsibility and there was no leadership. None. 
Our collective and national compassion was reduced to internal retreat 
and rapacious impulses. While so-called leaders spun blame, the poor, 
the sick and the stranded continued to suffer. We, as a nation, 
collectively fell down and hard, and against and away from the greater 
good that is in all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, government-sponsored no-bid contractors at politically 
motivated firms like Halliburton are exploiting our Nation's generosity 
here in America and abroad. In the gulf coast region of this Nation and 
in the Middle East region of this world, contractors are pillaging the 
very people whose economic interests we have been sent here to protect. 
In the midst of war and in the aftermath of natural disaster, hundreds 
of millions in taxpayer-funded relief and recovery are being wasted, 
squandered, lost forever.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion I offer today will impose stiff fines and 
criminal penalties on contractors who knowingly falsify information in 
order to win approval of government contracts during Presidentially 
declared emergencies. While in this Chamber the proper role of 
government is often debated, the one undisputed and unifying principle 
is that above all else, our responsibility to each other and to the 
American people is to protect the Nation from entities who seek to 
injure and destroy us and from natural disasters that devastate our 
community.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion I offer today at this defining moment in our 
Nation's history will either reaffirm the promise of our Nation's 
greatness or condemn us from this moment on for failing to live up to 
our obligations as a nation that deserves and demands only from us 
fairness and goodness.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all the Members to support this motion to end 
this culture of corruption.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this motion is offered by a Member 
who stated to the Speaker that he is opposed to this bill. He is 
opposed to providing additional security to judges, to prosecutors, to 
witnesses, to victims and their family members. He is opposed to a bill 
that has been worked on significantly on a bipartisan basis. And he has 
stated that he is opposed to doing something where there is a crying 
need, given the threats and the murders in courthouses all around the 
country, and not just Federal courthouses but State and local 
courthouses as well.
  Now, what does he propose to do in the motion to recommit? He 
proposes to add additional criminal penalties for things that are 
already criminal. And all that does is to confuse juries, to confuse 
prosecutors, to confuse people who are attempting to do business with 
the government.
  Profiteering in an illegal manner is already criminal under the 
United States Code. We do not need to confuse the issue with an 
additional statutes. And we do not need to defeat this bill by this 
motion that has been offered by several proclaimed opponents of this 
bill.

                              {time}  1800

  The bill is a good one. In order to get it passed and signed into law 
to protect the judicial branch and those who do business and work for 
it, vote this silly motion down and pass the bill as has been worked 
out on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct 
conferees on the PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization bill.
  This Motion to Instruct would take the most contentious provisions of 
this bill and sunset them in 4 years. These provisions include section 
215, which allows officials to order the surrender of anything when 
relevant to a terror investigation, section 206 which allows secret 
wiretap orders without definition of who and where the tap will go, and 
the ``Lone Wolf'' provision which allows the government to surveil so 
called ``agents of a foreign power'' who act alone.
  Egregious law that robs the civil liberties of law abiding Americans 
should be reviewed sooner than later, therefore I strongly support 
these sunset provisions proposed in this motion to instruct.
  My constituents agree that the American people should not have to 
compromise their civil liberties in order to combat extremism. The 
local governments of Pacific Grove, Salinas, Santa Cruz, and 
Watsonville, CA have all passed resolutions expressing their concerns 
with the anti-privacy and anti-liberty nature of the PATRIOT Act.
  I also would like to note my disappointment that the fiscal year 2006 
State-Science-Justice-Commerce Appropriations bill included one of the 
most invasive provisions of the PATRIOT Act that permits sweeping 
searches and seizures of library and bookstore patron records, despite 
this body's condemnation of the provision earlier this year.
  Voices in the Congress echo voices of people across America.
  I urge a ``yea'' vote on the motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). 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. HIGGINS. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 221, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 584]

                               AYES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     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 (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     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)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     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
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky

[[Page H10108]]


     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--221

     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)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     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
     Jones (NC)
     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
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Boswell
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Conaway
     Davis (FL)
     Hastings (FL)
     Norwood
     Pence
     Sessions
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1818

  Mr. CLEAVER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 375, 
nays 45, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 585]

                               YEAS--375

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     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
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     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)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                                NAYS--45

     Baldwin
     Carson
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Filner
     Grijalva
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Jackson (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Rahall
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Boswell
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Conaway
     Davis (FL)
     Hastings (FL)
     McCollum (MN)
     Norwood
     Pence
     Price (GA)
     Sessions
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1831

  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan and Mr. OWENS changed their 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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 585 I was 
inadverently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''




                          ____________________