[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.''
____________________