[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 25572-25575]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1751, SECURE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND 
                      COURT PROTECTION ACT of 2005

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 540 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 540

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1751) to amend title 18, United States Code, 
     to protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their 
     family members, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which 
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 540 is a structured rule which provides 
1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It 
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall 
be considered as read. It waives all points of order against the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

                              {time}  1130

  It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee report accompanying this resolution. It provides that the 
amendments made in order may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent. It shall not be subject to amendment or a 
demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
the Whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments printed 
in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 540 
and the underlying bill, H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and 
Court Protection Act of 2005.
  First, I want to extend my gratitude to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary. I also 
would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the 
author of this important piece of legislation.
  As I previously noted in my opening statement for the rule on H.R. 
420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005, this past month has 
ushered in the passage of very meaningful and very significant 
legislation to reform and strengthen our courts both procedurally and 
substantively. Today we have an opportunity to strengthen our courts in 
a more literal sense by protecting them against a rising tide of 
violence that has harmed and claimed the lives of innocent individuals 
charged with enforcing and upholding our laws.
  It was only a number of months ago that tragedy struck the Fulton 
County courthouse in Atlanta, my home State of Georgia. There, as most 
of America

[[Page 25573]]

watched and sorrowfully remember, on March 13 a cold-blooded killer 
took the lives of four innocent people, forever robbing their families 
and depriving our legal system of the distinguished service of Fulton 
County Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes, age 64; his court reporter, 
Julie Anne Brandau, age 46; Fulton County Sheriff Deputy Hoyt Teasley, 
age 43; and Federal agent David Wilhelm, age 40.
  Mr. Speaker, law and order, not violence, should permeate our courts. 
Accordingly, H.R. 1751 would take important steps to deter and punish 
those who would exact revenge because they were caught in a criminal 
activity.
  First, this bill will further punish any individual who would seek to 
influence, impede, or retaliate against a judge, a prosecutor, a law 
enforcement officer, or their families by increasing the penalties and 
providing new mandatory minimums such as 30-years-to-life mandatory 
minimum for kidnapping.
  Additionally, each and every day men and women in law enforcement and 
public safety across this country proudly don their uniforms, fully 
recognizing that they represent their cities, States and their country; 
and they proudly assume a substantial amount of personal risk to do so.
  Therefore, H.R. 1751 would establish as a new category of criminal 
offense the killing, the attempted killing, or conspiracy to kill any 
public safety officer for a federally funded public agency. This 
legislation defines ``public safety officer'' as an employee or officer 
of the judiciary, a firefighter, a law enforcement officer, or any 
other State or local employee.
  This bill would also crack down on the disclosure on the Internet of 
personal information of judges, court personnel, law enforcement and 
safety officers, jurors, and witnesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to emphasize H.R. 1751's protections 
for jurors, witnesses, victims, and informants. The reality is that 
criminals or their associates can have the means to intimidate victims, 
and especially witnesses, essentially muscling them out of the 
courtroom. Accordingly, this bill goes a long way to ensuring the 
safety of witnesses and victims in order to keep their testimony in the 
court and keep the criminals behind bars.
  This legislation expands the current framework between the United 
States Marshals Service and the Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts to facilitate consultation and cooperation in the 
development of security standards and requirements for our courthouses. 
It prohibits the possession of a dangerous weapon, including a firearm, 
in a Federal court facility; and it creates opportunities for State 
courts to improve security through discretionary Byrne grants.
  Mr. Speaker, in recent debates, some of my colleagues have 
unfortunately called into question the importance of legal reform in 
this country to the point of insinuating that such reforms are not 
worth this House's time for consideration.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the judicial branch affects the lives of every 
single American and almost every aspect of American life from 
conception to natural death, and sometimes even after death. Therefore, 
I think legal reform has and will continue to be a very appropriate 
matter for consideration and a good use of this Congress' time, 
especially when we are dealing with the safety of those men and women 
involved with our all-important third branch of government.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of this rule. 
I ask my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule, H. Res. 540, will allow the House to take up 
legislation to protect Federal judges, court employees, safety 
officers, jurors, and witnesses.
  Unfortunately, we are all aware of the tragic violence committed 
against judges and their families this year. In one case this past 
February, Judge Joan Lefkow, a Federal judge from Chicago, returned 
home to find her husband and her mother murdered. We later learned it 
had been a retaliation for a earlier court ruling. It is hard to 
comprehend such a senseless loss.
  Clearly, the additional steps we are taking today are important to 
protect judges and their family members. H.R. 1751, the Secure Access 
to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005, increases the penalty for 
assaulting, kidnapping or murdering a Federal judge, other public 
officials, and their immediate family members. Further, the bill 
extends these protections to jurors and witnesses.
  For our judicial system to function, the authority and safety of our 
Federal judges must be ensured. Judges, as well as jurors, should know 
they are free to make unbiased and sound decisions based on the facts 
and the rule of law and not on the fear that they may face retaliation 
for a decision they hand down.
  It is equally important witnesses know they will also be secure when 
testifying. They must know that it is safe to do the right thing and 
testify before a court of law. For this reason, I appreciate that the 
Committee on the Judiciary included grants to assist States in 
operating the witness protection programs.
  However, I do have some significant reservations about this 
legislation. Included in H.R. 1751 are over a dozen new mandatory 
minimum penalties.
  Mr. Speaker, we must protect our judges from harm without impeding 
their judicial independence. It is the judges and juries who have the 
facts of each case before them, not Congress. And it is judges and 
juries who should be determining the proper and appropriate punishment.
  Therefore, it should not surprise Members that the Judicial 
Conference of the United States, the body Congress turns to for 
nonpartisan recommendations on our Federal judiciary, has expressed a 
deep opposition to mandatory minimums on more than a dozen occasions in 
its communications to Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, mandatory minimums simply do not work. Rather, they tie 
the hands of our judges, not allowing them to fit the best punishment 
to the crime.
  I look forward to the debate on these amendments and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the underlying legislation. I want to congratulate my friend from 
Georgia and my friend from California for their management of this 
issue.
  I would like to say that the rule itself provides by a 2-1 ratio more 
amendments offered by Democrats than Republicans. Not every single 
amendment was made in order, as I see my friend, Mrs. McCarthy, here. I 
will say, as we regularly hear people say that the amendments the 
Democrats proposed are not given an opportunity to be heard on the 
floor, by a 2-1 margin, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing amendments made in 
order by Democrats over Republicans.
  Specifically to the concern I know will be raised by the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), we frankly upstairs had been under the 
impression that the language that she and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell) had proceeded through consideration, and I was wrong on 
that. I had gotten some incorrect information.
  But I have talked with staff members of the Judiciary Committee; and 
I have an assurance, and while I know this amendment will not be made 
in order today, when it comes to looking at background checks and the 
history of individuals, this is a priority that the committee will put 
forward. They have assured me that they will proceed with hearings on 
this issue. I would like to say to my friend from New York who will 
raise concerns about this that is a priority that we have and we hope 
very much to address it.

[[Page 25574]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the 
legislation itself. I would like to begin by congratulating Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who as a 
former judge is obviously concerned about the threats that have been 
out there for his former colleagues. I believe it is very important, 
when we think about the importance of the rule of law, which is 
absolutely essential, absolutely essential for the success of liberty, 
ensuring the safety of these judges who have continued to face threats, 
is very, very important for us to do.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, our colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) referred to his father who was a judge, and as we all know, 
former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He talked about 
those threats. He told me repeatedly about the threats that existed. 
This legislation, I believe, that Mr. Gohmert has put together will go 
a long way towards addressing that concern.
  I would like to talk about a very important provision that is 
included in this bill that enjoys strong bipartisan support. One of the 
serious problems with which we are all dealing is the issue of illegal 
immigration and the problem we have of people who are in this country. 
We know 98 percent of them are here to simply feed their families, but 
we know there are people here in this country who perpetrate crime 
against our fellow citizens. We know there continues to be the 
existence of a threat that a terrorist could come here. We know that 
Mohammed Atta, one of those who flew a plane into the World Trade 
Center Tower on September 11, 2001, was, in fact, here illegally. So as 
we look at the issue of illegal immigration, focusing on criminals and 
potential terrorists is a very high priority.
  One of the worst days for law enforcement in the Los Angeles County 
Sheriff's Department was April 29, 2002. That is 3\1/2\ years ago. On 
that day, Deputy Sheriff David March was on patrol. He pulled over for 
a traffic violation an individual who ended up putting a gun to Deputy 
March's head and brutally killing him.

                              {time}  1145

  The alleged killer, Armando Garcia, fled to Mexico, and it has been 
3\1/2\ years, and we have not resolved that case.
  Within just a few weeks of that April 29 killing in 2002, upstairs in 
the Rules Committee I convened a meeting of my colleagues, Buck McKeon, 
who represented the March family; Ken Calvert, who was very involved in 
this issue and concerned about it. On the other side of the aisle, 
Howard Berman and Adam Schiff, and we also had at that meeting, Mr. 
Speaker, representatives from the Mexican Embassy's judicial department 
within the embassy here; and we also had representatives from our 
Department of Justice.
  Now, our concern has been a terrible provision that exists in Mexican 
law. It is actually constitutional, saying that the Mexican Government 
refuses to extradite a criminal who potentially could face the death 
penalty, and this is something that has existed for a long period of 
time. Something that was very unfortunate was that in September of 
2001, the Mexican Supreme Court took steps to say that they refused to 
extradite an alleged criminal to a country or a state or a jurisdiction 
that had life imprisonment as the punishment because they considered 
that to be cruel and unusual punishment.
  Mr. Speaker, it is horrible that they have that policy, and we need 
to do everything we can to change that policy. We need to encourage the 
Mexican Government to change that policy. Why? This does not have to do 
with something that took place in their country. It has to do with a 
crime perpetrated on U.S. soil. So I believe the Mexican Government 
should, in fact, extradite an alleged criminal who has perpetrated a 
crime here in the United States to face the punishment in the 
jurisdiction where the crime was perpetrated.
  So what has happened here, Mr. Speaker, is that we want to ensure 
that we never see happen again what happened on April 29, 2002. And I 
should add that is not the only instance. We all know of many other 
instances where law enforcement officers have been killed and people 
have fled the country. But this case has become a very prominent one.
  So I was approached by Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, and I was 
joined by my colleague Mr. Schiff, who serves on the Judiciary 
Committee; and we were asked to introduce legislation that would make 
it a Federal crime to kill a law enforcement officer and flee the 
country. We spent a great deal of time working with a wide range of 
organizations, and we have put together a package which I believe can 
allow us to do that without impinging on the local jurisdiction that we 
believe district attorneys should have in dealing with this issue. It 
does not in any way diminish the level of punishment. But what it does 
do, Mr. Speaker, is it puts the full force of the Federal Government 
behind an effort to ensure that we do not have happen again what 
happened on April 29 of 2002.
  One of the things that I believe is important is to recognize that 
there are families that have suffered, and I have had the opportunity, 
through Sheriff Baca and through others, to get to know the family 
members of Deputy Sheriff David March. So, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3900 is 
the legislation that Adam Schiff and I introduced, and it is included 
as part of this very important court security measure that Mr. Gohmert 
has offered, and I would like to name the provisions that are included 
calling for making it a Federal crime to kill a law enforcement officer 
in the name of Deputy Sheriff David March. And I spoke with Sheriff Lee 
Baca this morning about that, and I really feel that we are doing this 
in the name of David March to keep the memory of his life alive, the 
memory alive so that we can send a signal that we are not going to 
tolerate this kind of act in the future.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have here, again, a very important measure 
included in critical must-pass legislation, and I hope that my 
colleagues will join in providing bipartisan support for this measure.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I am very happy to hear from my colleague from California explaining 
the move last night on not allowing my amendment to be put forth; and I 
hope that, working with him and certainly Mr. Sensenbrenner on the 
Judiciary Committee, we can move this bill forward.
  H.R. 1751 goes to great lengths to punish those who commit violence 
in our courthouses, and rightly so. However, this bill falls short when 
it comes to preventative measures that would stop these senseless 
attacks from happening in the first place.
  As was mentioned, last night I offered such an amendment in the Rules 
Committee. It would automate the court records into the National 
Institute Background Check System so recently convicted individuals 
could not buy a gun. The reason we want to do that, basically, is if a 
person is convicted and still not going straight to jail to prevent 
them from going out and buying a gun and coming back and doing harm, 
whether it is to a judge, a family, or a court officer.
  Many State courts fail to enter this data into the NICS System in a 
timely manner, if at all. For example, the subject of a restraining 
order stemming from spousal abuse can leave the courthouse, go to a gun 
store, make a purchase, and seek revenge on the court officers.
  My amendment would require that court rulings be immediately entered 
into the NICS System. It would provide grants to State courts that do 
not have the resources to comply. But my amendment was the only 
amendment not to be accepted by the Rules Committee, and we heard that 
wrong information had been given to Mr. Dreier, and I accept that. 
Those things happen.
  All of us here want to save lives. I mean, that is what we want to 
do. We

[[Page 25575]]

want to protect our men and women in uniform. We want to protect our 
court officers, our judges. This amendment certainly could have helped 
that. It would have made a good bill, in my opinion, a better bill.
  So with that I hope that we will be here down the road soon, be able 
to offer my full bill because, again, this does not infringe on second 
amendment rights. It is there to protect people. It is there to save 
lives, and that is my goal.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close in celebration of the 
men and women who put their lives on the line every day, whether by 
working the beat, extinguishing a four-alarm fire, or ensuring equal 
justice under the law by means of the gavel.
  As I mentioned earlier, when these individuals put on their uniforms, 
they become representatives of the community in service of the 
community. They are not enforcing their own will; but they are, rather, 
seeking guidance from and working to uphold the laws of the land.
  Mr. Speaker, while there are some individuals who are occasionally 
accused of abusing their power, the vast majority, the vast majority, 
of these civil servants are only doing their job admirably; and, 
therefore, there is absolutely no justification for an accused or 
guilty individual to ever attach their anger to or seek revenge against 
these individuals who are only doing their duty.
  Unfortunately, the increase of violent activities against judges, and 
we talked about that here during this hour, court officers, witnesses, 
victims, and law enforcement has made this bill not only necessary but 
also a top priority in the preservation of our system of law and 
justice.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the discussion of H.R. 1751 and the 
numerous amendments this rule has made in order. As always, I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________