[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9150-9163]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1279, GANG DETERRENCE AND COMMUNITY 
                         PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 268 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 268

       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. 1279) to amend title 18, United States Code, 
     to reduce violent gang crime and protect law-abiding citizens 
     and communities from violent criminals, and for other 
     purposes. 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. 
     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.

[[Page 9151]]



                              {time}  1045

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule providing for consideration of 
H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005. 
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and 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 it 
makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules 
report accompanying this resolution.
  It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, and 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 a division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  It waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the 
report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to get tough on gang activity. 
If we can get tough on drugs and if we can get tough on identity theft, 
terrorism, child abduction, we can get tough on gangs by creating the 
tools to put gang members behind bars and get them off the streets.
  Gang activity is a real problem, a continuously growing problem. All 
cities with a population of more than 250,000 people have reported gang 
activity. Best estimates indicate that there are at least 750,000 gang 
members in the United States. They represent the ills of our society 
with links to drug trade, human trafficking, identity theft, assault 
and murder. Gang members continue to break our laws, reject 
rehabilitation efforts, and they are branching out beyond our cities 
into suburban and, yes, even rural, communities.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot solve our problems by simply throwing around 
money, nor can we simply categorize gang activity as isolated 
incidents. We cannot eliminate gangs by prosecuting incident by 
incident. We need to enforce our laws in language gang members can 
understand: you do the crime; you do the time.
  With the support of the Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Police Officers and 
many other, more specialized, law enforcement organizations, H.R. 1279, 
the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005, will make the 
necessary changes to prosecute gang criminals.
  The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act designates high-
intensity gang areas, and it authorizes funds to combat their illegal 
activity for special State and Federal enforcement task forces. It 
authorizes $20 million per year over 5 years to help States hire 
prosecutors, purchase technology, purchase equipment, and train law 
enforcement.
  Most importantly, it increases penalties to deter violent gang crimes 
such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault. The penalties include 
death or life imprisonment for murder, 30 years for kidnapping or rape, 
and 20 years for assault. In addition, this legislation includes 
juvenile justice reform to ensure that adult crimes, with adult 
motives, are prosecuted with adult penalties.
  The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act would give the 
Attorney General discretion on whether or not to try a juvenile in 
Federal court as an adult if they are 16 or 17 years old. Mr. Speaker, 
let me be clear, this legislation does not and will not apply adult 
standards to anyone younger than 16.
  According to the Department of Justice ``Homicide Trends Report,'' 
between 1976 and 2002 one out of every three murders were committed by 
a juvenile for gang-related reasons. That means 16- and 17-year-olds 
are making adult, criminal decisions that equal tragedy for our 
neighbors and our friends.
  More than half the States have enacted laws that mandate the 
prosecution of juveniles as adults for certain violent crimes, most 
notably murder. My own State of Georgia has laws that give prosecutors 
discretion on whether to treat juveniles as adults involving violent 
and repeat offenses.
  Children by the legal definition making adult criminal decisions 
affect everyone. We need to pass strong anti-gang laws to help prevent 
troubled teenagers from becoming violent gang members.
  As gangs spread and grow, we are seeing more drug activity. These are 
not simply high schoolers caught with marijuana. We are seeing gangs 
produce and trade dangerous drugs such as methamphetamine and cocaine. 
For example, in February, the Atlanta police, United States Drug 
Enforcement, the MCS Drug Task Force and other law enforcement agencies 
discovered Georgia's first ``superlab'' in my district, in Smyrna, 
Georgia, the 11th. With 39 pounds of meth crystal and 250 gallons of 
the drug in liquid form, one mistake could have destroyed an entire 
neighborhood.
  By strengthening laws against gangs, we are helping fight the supply 
side of our war against drugs. Gangs are not just a city threat when 
they jeopardize suburban neighborhoods.
  Mr. Speaker, gang activity is as important to the war on crime today 
as the battles against organized crime in the 1960s and 1970s. This 
legislation goes beyond national gangs like the Bloods and the Crips 
and would actually make progress in breaking down membership before 
these smaller gangs expand into a national nightmare.
  Like our war against terrorism, our law enforcement on the State, 
local, and national levels need to communicate, to share intelligence, 
and to share resources. We need stronger sentencing to deter crime, and 
we need to identify potential hot spots before they become major 
problems.
  With passage of the rule, and the underlying bill, we will have the 
power to take back our communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey), my colleague, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that every single Member of this 
House is concerned about gang violence in our communities and 
throughout our country, and every single Member of this House is 
dedicated to trying to make our communities and our Nation safer. 
However, some of us want to pass not a press release but tough 
legislation that will indeed make our communities safer.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1279, the 
so-called Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act. It is bad 
policy wrapped in a bad bill that will simply not do the job the 
sponsors claim it will do.
  Do not let the title of the bill fool Members. It has nothing to do 
with deterrence or community protection. This bill does nothing to 
address the causes of gang activity. Instead, its primary purposes 
include unjustifiable punishment and ineffective enforcement of the 
law.
  The bill unjustifiably expands death penalty provisions, removes 
judicial discretion over transferring juveniles to the adult court 
system, and imposes ineffective mandatory minimum sentencing.
  Mr. Speaker, Time magazine focused on the spike in gang activity in 
Los Angeles in the September 3, 2001, edition. In that story, Father 
Greg Boyle,

[[Page 9152]]

a Catholic priest who worked in a gang-infested area of East Los 
Angeles, said that California's anti-gang strategy, which has been 
copied across the country, ``is bankrupt. You have the three strikes 
law and jail and so on, but you can't terrify a kid into being hopeful 
about his future.''
  The following quote is even more telling: ``We don't need new laws. 
We have a penal code a foot thick. You can't just work gangs with 
police suppression. You need prevention and intervention programs, 
too.'' Mr. Speaker, that statement was not made by a social worker or 
community activist. No, Mr. Speaker, it came from Sergeant Wes McBride, 
founder of the California Gang Investigators Association and a 28-year 
veteran of anti-gang policing.
  After reading this legislation, it is clear to me that this bill will 
do nothing to deter gang activity and, instead, will sentence American 
youth to lives of crime and violence instead of proactively intervening 
in our communities to prevent our children and our youngsters from 
joining gangs in the first place.
  This legislation contains several provisions that unjustifiably 
expand the Federal death penalty. Despite numerous studies that have 
documented both the exposure of innocent individuals to the death 
penalty system and its discriminatory nature, the proponents of this 
bill want to make this already-flawed system worse.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say this clearly. I am opposed to the death 
penalty. I do not believe the death penalty deters future crimes. It 
has been proven that the death penalty unfairly targets minorities. It 
has also been proven that innocent people have been sent to death row 
and have been put to death. Inclusion of the death penalty in this bill 
is wrong and should be stripped out.
  Since 1973, 119 innocent people have been released from Death Row. A 
study performed by the Criminal Justice Reform Education Fund reported 
that over two-thirds of all capital convictions and sentences between 
1973 and 1995 were reversed because of serious error during trial or 
sentencing. How can we expand the death penalty system, especially to 
include juveniles, when it is proven to be faulty, discriminatory, and 
not an effective deterrent to violent behavior?
  Let me remind my colleagues that President Bush signed the Justice 
for All Act into law on October 30, 2004. This law, which was approved 
overwhelmingly by this body, improved the fallibility of the death 
penalty system by making DNA technology available to our criminal 
justice system in order to improve its ability to exonerate the 
innocent, as well as identify and convict the guilty. However, the 
important provisions in the Justice For All Act that would improve the 
fallibility of the death penalty system are not even being funded. As 
if that were not bad enough, the bill before us today would actually 
create new death penalty provisions.
  In effect, Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we are adding more death 
penalty cases to an already-broken system that is desperately in need 
of repair. By not funding the protections provided under the Justice 
for All Act and by expanding the death penalty to new cases, this bill 
makes the death penalty system worse, not better.
  Another provision that I strongly disagree with is the transferring 
of juveniles to the adult court system. Research performed by the 
Department of Justice has shown that youths tried as adults are more 
likely to commit a greater number of crimes upon release and that these 
crimes will be violent. Youths sent to prison with adults end up 
victims of rape, assault and become high repeat offenders. When these 
prisoners are released and attempt to reenter society, what are their 
options? It is most likely they will pick up where they left off and 
contribute once again to the cycle of gangs and violence.
  Moving a youth into the adult court system and prison system will not 
reduce the amount of youth crime and gang activity. If anything, it 
will make it worse.

                              {time}  1100

  Another flawed aspect of H.R. 1279 is its emphasis on mandatory 
minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentencing will not prevent 
youths from joining gang or reduce violent crime among youths. 
Mandatory minimums were originally created to decrease the disparity in 
sentencing of like offenders. However, the Judicial Conference of the 
United States and the U.S. Sentencing Commission has found mandatory 
minimums ``require sentencing courts to impose the same sentence on 
offenders when sound policy and common sense call for reasonable 
differences in punishment.'' In other words, judges are prevented from 
assessing what type of punishment fits the crime.
  Removing sentencing power from judges and shifting discretion to 
prosecutors will not prevent any youth from joining a gang, committing 
his first crime or becoming a repeat offender. In fact, this is exactly 
what the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in January when it ruled to allow 
Federal judges to deviate from sentencing guidelines. I submit, Mr. 
Speaker, that this bill's host of harsh mandatory sentences is directly 
in defiance of the Supreme Court ruling.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that intervention programs work in the majority 
of cases. For the most violent and dangerous individuals, we already 
have laws on the books that address these actions. But we have a real 
chance through prevention and intervention programs to make a 
difference in the lives of these young people. Instead of expanding 
death penalty provisions and trying juveniles as adults, we need to 
address the problem of youth crime and violence through early 
intervention and treatment methods. Programs like Head Start and the 
Job Corps have proven to be an effective means of deterring crime.
  Studies of Head Start demonstrate that $3 is saved for every $1 spent 
on the program by reducing the future cost of crime, remedial education 
and welfare. This is clearly more cost effective than spending $9 
billion over the next 10 years for prison bed construction and inmate 
upkeep, which happens to be the cost impact of H.R. 1279 estimated by 
the Sentencing Commission.
  Job Corps programs deter crime by guiding at-risk youths and adults 
to getting a job or full-time study. About 75 percent of Job Corps 
participants move on to a full-time job or study and are one-third less 
likely to be arrested than nonparticipants. This approach makes sense 
as a crime deterrent, and it is also economically beneficial.
  Youth crime and gangs are an issue in many cities around the country. 
In my home city of Worcester, Massachusetts, I helped coordinate a 
community-wide forum this past fall to address the issue of gang 
violence. Local police, city government officials, the district 
attorney, the sheriff's office, and hundreds of individuals were among 
the attendees. Also participating in this event was the Boston Ten 
Point Coalition, a nationally recognized leadership foundation whose 
mission is to reach out to at-risk youth and gang members in hopes of 
reducing violence in the community.
  One particular item the Coalition discussed was the Adopt-A-Gang 
program, in which city churches keep their doors open and serve as a 
support center for troubled youth. The churches work with local law 
enforcement to communicate messages of nonviolence and zero tolerance 
for crime to these youths. And I am happy to say that the churches of 
the city of Worcester, along with the city government, the police 
department and local businesses are currently working with the 
Coalition to implement this program.
  Hands-on, coordinated efforts like the Adopt-A-Gang program are how 
youth crime can be deterred, not through codification of a so-called 
gang-buster bill like H.R. 1279. Early prevention programs like Head 
Start reduce crime; expansion of death penalty provisions will not. 
Recruitment efforts by Job Corps deter gangs; prosecuting young people 
as adults will not. Collaborative interventions like Adopt-A-Gang 
program protect our community; mandatory minimum sentencing will not.

[[Page 9153]]

  Mr. Speaker, none of the provisions in this bill have proven to be 
effective ways of dealing with gangs and violent youth behavior. 
Instead of taking a comprehensive approach to the problem, H.R. 1279's 
``punishment first, prevention last'' methodology does not dedicate any 
efforts toward early intervention, education or rehabilitation.
  Ask any cop. Aggressive policing alone will never break the cycle of 
gang violence. However, one of the things this bill also does not 
address is the shortage of police officers across the country. The 
Federal Government is cutting the COPS program. Local communities all 
across this country are laying off police officers at a time when we 
should be increasing the number of police who are on our streets. 
Intervention and preventive programs like Head Start, Job Corps and the 
Ten Point Coalition are crucial to any hopes of deterring gangs.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past decade, this House has worked in a 
bipartisan manner to effectively draft and pass comprehensive juvenile 
justice legislation. This bill is a sharp break with that tradition. 
Getting tough should mean passing legislation that works, not just 
passing legislation that sounds tough.
  Mr. Speaker, finally, let me just say that 16 Democratic amendments 
were not made in order by the Committee on Rules last night. Why? I 
have no idea. According to our schedule, we are going to be done today 
by around 4 p.m. Surely it is not because we do not have the time to be 
able to debate some of these important amendments.
  This is the kind of legislation where people from different 
communities, from urban areas and from rural areas who are dealing with 
this issue of gang violence have important ideas. They brought them 
forward in the Committee on Rules last night. Yet, last night, the 
Committee on Rules said to 16 Democrats that you will be shut out of 
this debate. I do not think that is the way we should be discussing a 
bill like this.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1279 and 
oppose the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to clarify and to remind my colleagues on the other side, who are 
suggesting we should be adding more social programs to this 
legislation, that this is not a social programs bill. It is a law 
enforcement bill. If they would like to work with the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary to craft a bill that would authorize arts 
and craft classes for gang members, certainly they can do that.
  I would also like to mention that we currently have spent over the 
past 4 years, 2001 to 2004, over $2.1 billion on juvenile social 
programs aimed at prevention. And even with $2.1 billion, we have 
continued to see this dramatic rise in gang violence.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Forbes), the distinguished author of the bill and member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I rise 
today to support both this rule and the underlying bill and to point 
out to my good friend on the other side that this is a bipartisan bill, 
and it is a bill that is designed to reach a major problem in our 
country today, which is the rise of violent gang crime.
  When I listen to some of our opponents talk about this bill, they 
always use the term ``antisocial behavior,'' and I can tell you from 
studying gangs for over 10 years, it is not antisocial behavior that we 
are talking about. Let me, Mr. Speaker, tell you what we are talking 
about. We are talking about machete attacks, witness intimidation, 
extortion, cold-blooded assassination, rapes, cutting off people's 
fingers, cutting off their arms, cutting off their heads.
  But what concerns me the most, Mr. Speaker, is the metamorphosis I 
have seen in violent gang activity across our country. First of all, 
there has been a huge change in numbers. My good friend from Georgia 
mentioned earlier that, as we sit here and debate this bill, there is 
probably between 750,000 to 850,000 gang members in the United States. 
To put that in perspective, if they were an army from a foreign 
country, it would be the sixth largest army in the world. And that is 
not waiting to get in our borders, but already here.
  Their violence has increased enormously. In some of these gangs, in 
order to be able to get in, if you are a woman, you have to be raped 
in, for 30 minutes by six different individuals. If you are a male, you 
have to be either beaten in or, to some of the gangs, you have to 
murder somebody to get into the gang.
  And they have become national and international in scope. No longer 
are we talking about the old Jets and Sharks from West Side Story; we 
are talking about gangs that are across the country that have boards of 
directors outside the prisons, boards of directors inside the prisons, 
and they are ordering violent activity. They may be in Los Angeles, but 
they are ordering the violence in another part of the country.
  Their recruitment is now reaching as low as the elementary schools, 
and their motivation to join is no longer just a fear or a want to 
belong to something. Today, many people feel if they do not join the 
gang, they will be beaten or intimidated by the gang. So it is the 
presence of the gang and the fear and intimidation of the gang that is 
drawing them there.
  Also, one of the things that concerns us most is that many of these 
gangs have become the most proficient smugglers of individuals and 
weapons in the country, and it is a small linkage between the gang 
activity that we are seeing and their connection with organized 
terrorist activity.
  What this bill says is that, if you join a violent criminal gang and 
you commit a gang crime, you will go to jail for a long time, or you 
will help us bring down that network. What this bill says is that, if 
you are a gang leader, you can no longer order violence in one part of 
the country by a 16- or 17-year old and expect to go scot-free, because 
the Federal, State and local government is coming after you. It also 
says that we are going to use the combined strength of the Federal, 
State and local government to protect citizens in our own borders from 
the domestic terror they face from gangs.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if this bill fails, we might as 
well put a sign on a billboard that says ``Coming to a neighborhood 
near you soon,'' because that is the growth we are seeing in violent 
gangs.
  My good friend just raised in his opposition to the bill the support 
of the California Gang Investigators Association. They support this 
bill. The Fraternal Order of Police supports this bill. The National 
Latino Peace Officers Association supports this bill. The National 
Association of Police Organizations supports this bill. The major 
chiefs of law enforcement departments across the country support this 
bill. The National Troopers Coalition supports this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we will support this bill and make it into law 
and protect our citizens.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to my colleague by saying that all the groups he has 
mentioned, and so many more, also support the COPS program, too, which 
the President has cut by $40 million. We can talk all we want about 
using all this harsh rhetoric, but the bottom line is, there are laws 
already on the books if you commit a violent crime in this country. 
Right now, if you commit a murder, you will go to jail.
  One of the things that is most troubling to me as we talk about how 
we make our communities safer, there is no talk about the fact that we 
are cutting funds for our local police departments. We need more police 
on the streets. That is not the only answer here, but clearly, the 
answer is not cutting the COPS program, which the Republican majority 
in this House is doing, and the President has suggested in his budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson).

[[Page 9154]]


  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have worked with gangs at home in conjunction with our 
police department, and there is a way to start prevention. I recognize 
that the crimes that have been mentioned here this morning are crimes 
that should be punished. I believe if you do the crime, you do the 
time. But I also believe that you can prevent this with young people.
  I dialogued with members of a gang several years ago, shortly after I 
heard that the people are coming from Los Angeles to start gangs. And 
in dialoguing with these young people, I first had to understand what 
they were saying. That gang activity has been converted to something 
positive because I encouraged it. I said, Stay together but do not do 
crime stuff, do things positive. That is what they have done. They have 
even run people for office. You have got to not give up on young 
people.
  Americans deserve a bill that would successfully combat gang activity 
and violence. This bill does fall short of that. This bill fails to 
address the root of the problem. Even though law enforcement is vital, 
we must try to prevent gang activities before they occur. Prevention 
programs can save many lives and many dollars. It is a lot cheaper to 
prevent all this crime and prevent them going to jail and for them to 
stay in school.
  Of the $50 million appropriated in this bill, not one penny goes 
toward prevention. You can call it play. You can call it anything you 
want. But in-school and after-school prevention programs successfully 
teach young people the skills they need to combat peer pressure. They 
target environmental risk factors by teaching young people conflict 
resolution skills, cultural sensitivity and the negative aspects of 
gang life, if it is violent.
  These young people want to be a part of something, and it might as 
well be a positive experience. We must stop the violence at the source. 
If we do not put forth that activity, that is when it gravitates to 
what he just discussed. We must give our young people a path to success 
not just a path to prison.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the underlying legislation. I want to congratulate my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for his management of this rule; 
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) for the hard work that he 
has put into this effort.
  It is amazing, as we listened to those numbers that the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) used, talking about the fact that this would 
be the sixth largest army on the face of the earth, between three-
quarters of a million and 850,000 gang members, 21,500 gangs out there; 
the fact that it has become such an international entity.

                              {time}  1115

  It is clear that we need to do everything that we can to take action.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this rule will provide us with an 
opportunity to do just that. At the close of his statement, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) bemoaned the fact that we 
do not have enough amendments to be made in order by Democrats. The 
fact of the matter is the gentlewoman who just spoke, my very good 
friend from Dallas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), is going to have an 
amendment made in order under this rule.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) is going to have an amendment 
made in order under this rule. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Watson) is going to have two amendments made in order under this rule. 
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) who is sitting here on the 
floor along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is going 
to have an amendment made in order under this rule.
  The fact is six of the 10 amendments that are going to be made in 
order under this rule are being offered by members of the minority, 
creating an opportunity for us to consider a wide range of alternatives 
in dealing with what everyone acknowledges is an extraordinarily 
serious problem.
  I want to take a moment to talk about three other amendments that are 
made in order under this rule that are very important, and I urge 
support for those amendments. They are being offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood). The fact is many of the problems that are gang-related stem 
from an issue which we have just begun to deal with by passing the REAL 
ID Act and that has to do with the problem of illegal immigration. We 
know when we look at the number of gang-related homicides that have 
taken place in Southern California in the last 5 years, in the county 
where I live, Los Angeles, we have had 307 gang-related homicides. And 
now the number of those murders is spilling over into San Bernardino 
County.
  One of the things that we found, tragically, is that much of this is 
directly related to the problem of illegal immigration. An overwhelming 
majority of the people who come into this country illegally, Mr. 
Speaker, come here for one reason and one reason only and that is to 
feed their families, to make sure that they can make a better life for 
their families. But of the remaining 2 percent who come in, tragically 
many of them have been perpetrating crime and tragically they are 
attracted to gangs.
  As was said earlier by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), many 
of these gangs are managed from inside of prisons, outside of prisons, 
boards of directors, and there is an international component to this 
which must be addressed. So I will say that the amendment of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), which I think is a very good 
one, will actually call for an additional 5 years of incarceration if, 
in fact, the gang member, the criminal, is found to be here illegally.
  One of the things we need to make sure that we do, Mr. Speaker, is 
that as we increase that level of incarceration for that illegal 
immigrant felon, it is essential that we make sure the Federal 
Government provide the resources for that incarceration. That is 
something that must be done. It is done under the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program, the SCAAP program; and we have to make sure that we 
provide those resources there, but it is correct and very important for 
us to do what we can to ensure that those people who are here illegally 
and perpetrate crimes against our fellow citizens are penalized for 
that.
  I believe we have a very good piece of legislation here. It will help 
us turn the corner on what is a very serious problem. We also need to 
do everything that we can to, as has been pointed out by a number of 
people, train and provide incentive and create opportunity for young 
people so they are not attracted to the gang life and a life of crime.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues' support of this very fair and 
balanced rule and, as I said, urge support for the underlying measure 
and urge support for the Goodlatte amendment and the two Norwood 
amendments.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I always enjoy listening to the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). He 
mentions that a handful of Democratic amendments were made in order, 
and I guess we all should be grateful on this side of the aisle because 
usually we get shut out totally. But the fact of the matter is 16 
Democratic amendments were not made in order. Sixteen amendments have 
been shut out from this debate. If this issue was so important, and it 
is important, then why can we not take the time to debate all the 
various ideas? As I said, according to the schedule, we may be out of 
here at 4 o'clock today. I am willing to stay until 5, or even until 6 
or even until 7 to give these other people an opportunity to have their 
concerns voiced on this floor.
  We all represent communities, unfortunately, that have been touched 
by

[[Page 9155]]

gang violence. All of us have dealt with community leaders, with our 
local police, in trying to figure out how best to deal with this 
violence. We all have good ideas. I think, especially on an issue like 
this, as many people who have these ideas should be able to bring them 
to the floor and to be able to debate them. But, unfortunately, 16 
amendments have been totally blocked from consideration on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the debate, you might not think it is 
illegal to use a machete to chop somebody's hand off or to, last night, 
gang-rape a handicapped child in the park, murder for hire, cold-
blooded murders. You might not think those are illegal. In most 
jurisdictions in the country, certainly in the jurisdictions that I 
represent, it is already illegal to take a machete and chop somebody's 
hand off, and I have not heard complaints from the local police that 
they need a new Federal law to help deal with those crimes.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced just about 2 months ago, 
incidentally the same day that a juvenile justice coalition released 
just another study showing how trying more juveniles as adults will 
actually increase crime. The rule, of course, does not allow us to 
address that issue, where juveniles, the marginal juveniles, the ones 
not now tried as adults in State court, would be tried as adults under 
this legislation. I have not seen any study that contradicts them, but 
all of the studies I have seen show that that will actually increase 
the crime rate because when they are tried as adults, they are also 
locked up with adult criminals and come out worse than they went in.
  No amendments in this rule are allowed to address the death penalty, 
which has been shown to be racially discriminatory, which has been 
shown to have no effect on crime and shown to be so inappropriate that 
the Supreme Court with seven Republican appointees sitting on the court 
ruled that, for juveniles, the death penalty was unconstitutional. We 
have not had an opportunity under the rule to address that, not even 
the fact that under the bill you can have a capital prosecution for 
accidents, accidental actions. It does not require an intent to kill 
someone. It could have been an accident. There was no amendment allowed 
for that.
  There is no amendment to allow the little money in the bill to go to 
local law enforcement. Virtually all of the money goes to Federal law 
enforcement. If you are going to have an effect on gangs, the money 
ought to go to where the gangs are actually fought, on the local.
  Mr. Speaker, we have not had the amendments to actually address the 
kinds of problems that are in the bill. It came out at the last minute. 
My colleague from Virginia has mentioned all the people supporting it. 
I know one letter we received talked about the need for all of the 
money in the bill going to law enforcement and help get the money for 
law enforcement in the bill to the localities, and you look in the bill 
and there is no money. It is all for Federal law enforcement, Federal 
prosecution. Virtually nothing for local law enforcement. If you look 
at the title of the bill, you think you are doing something. In fact, 
you are doing nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, the impact of this bill is going to round up a few low-
level people committing little crimes, some even misdemeanors, and they 
will be getting 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. If we are 
going to do something about crime, if you ask anybody that knows what 
they are talking about what to do about juvenile crime, they will tell 
you prevention and early intervention. Keep the kids out of trouble and 
if they get in trouble to begin with, get them right back on track. 
There is no money in here for prevention.
  We have heard a crack about arts and crafts for gang members. Let me 
tell you something. Arts and crafts for gang members will do more to 
reduce juvenile crime and gang membership than the provisions in this 
bill, and everybody knows it.
  I have got to admit that the sound bites and slogans are stronger on 
the other side, but all of the studies show that this bill would do 
virtually nothing to reduce juvenile crime and is certainly not an 
effective use of the taxpayers' money if your goal is to actually 
reduce crime. You need to put the money into prevention and early 
intervention. We lead the world in incarceration already. If you are 
going to get any more crime reduction out of the next dollar we are 
going to spend, it ought to go into prevention and early intervention 
to keep the kids out of trouble; 850,000 kids are not going to come out 
of gangs because we pass this legislation. They are in gangs now 
because they have nothing to do in the afternoon. We need to defeat 
this bill and do something serious about juvenile crime.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Virginia who just spoke is a brilliant lawyer, and 
I know he is not missing any points; but I want to say it is very 
important that the rest of our colleagues understand, we know that all 
of these crimes mentioned here today are illegal. But the point is, 
this bill addresses the dismantling of the systems that support gangs, 
and I think it is very important that we keep that in mind.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Reichert), 8 years King County sheriff and 30 years as a police 
officer.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, as the Congressman said, I have 33 years 
of law enforcement experience. In fact, up until January 3 of this 
year, I was a cop. One of the things I know about cops is that they 
need all kinds of tools, and we do need police officers on the street; 
but one of the most important things that cops want is to know that 
their community supports them, local, State, and Federal.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about a very serious problem. 
Across the country we are seeing a resurgence of organized crime 
sprawling into our towns and our neighborhoods. Gangs are becoming a 
magnet for youth, as they long to belong to something. This is hardly 
the team we want our children to join.
  Gang violence in America is not a sudden problem. It has been a part 
of urban life for years, offering an aggressive definition and identity 
to those seeking a place to belong in the chaos of a large metropolitan 
area. However, as gangs gain momentum and invade smaller communities, 
it is time to take a more serious and focused approach. The gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) addresses this critical problem today in the 
Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005.
  Prior to being elected to sheriff, as I said, I served 33 years as a 
cop. I have worked with prostitutes, drug dealers, and gang bangers for 
that length of time. My colleagues in the sheriff's office and I 
actively fought to curb the growth and influence of gangs. I know not 
only in my home State of Washington but across the country, law 
enforcement officers recognize gangs for the serious threat they are to 
our community.
  I believe in taking problems head on, not running away. You evaluate 
the facts, you make a decision, and then you see the solution through. 
We have recognized the consequence of letting this situation go forward 
for far too long. It is dangerous to all Americans. Whether a gang 
currently has a presence in our hometowns or not, we need to take a 
careful look at where this issue is headed and stop the influence of 
gangs before it spirals out of control and out of our hands.
  The United States Department of Justice cites that there are 
currently 25,000 active gangs in 3,000 jurisdictions across this 
country; 25,000 gangs. That equals 750,000 gang members. If growth 
continues, we could be looking at 1 million gang members across the 
country in only a few years. These groups are a funnel to criminal 
activities, allowing a central point to encourage violence and a family 
that preaches drug trafficking, murder, theft, prostitution, and rape. 
In fact, street gangs are the primary distributor of illegal drugs in 
the United States.

[[Page 9156]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am a man of faith who believes deeply in family and 
responsibility. Our obligation is to American families and communities. 
We need to look out for their futures. We need to direct our youth 
towards a path of success and progress as productive members of society 
looking towards a better country. We cannot afford to lose those 
talented youths in our community to a life on the street with drugs and 
a gang hierarchy whose form of discipline is violence.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Virginia's efforts to deter 
gangs across the country and urge my colleagues to support the rule and 
vote for final passage later today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Washington just said that our local law 
enforcement would appreciate the support of the Federal Government.

                              {time}  1130

  I could not agree with him more. Then why are we cutting community 
policing programs? I mean it does not make any sense to me. And why did 
the Committee on Rules last night deny the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Capuano) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) the right to 
offer an amendment that reauthorizes the Community Oriented Policing 
Services, the COPS program for fiscal year 2006, 2008? That was denied. 
We could have had a vote on the floor today on that amendment and a 
full debate, and that was denied in the Committee on Rules.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) had an amendment that would 
require that the purchase of firearms, ammunition and explosives to be 
made in person and to require records to be kept on how the purchases 
were made. The reason why this is an important amendment because more 
and more we find out that gangs are purchasing weapons over the 
internet. Yet that was not even made in order. I know the gun lobby 
does not like that amendment, but even so, if we want to make sure that 
gang members have a more difficult time getting access to firearms, we 
certainly should have debated that amendment.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) had an amendment that 
would make it illegal to transfer a firearm to any individual that the 
Federal Government has designated as a suspected or known gang member 
or terrorist. I am trying to find where the controversy is with that 
amendment. Yet the Committee on Rules would not allow that amendment to 
be made in order on the floor today.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) had an amendment that 
strikes the section of the bill that allows the Attorney General to 
charge as adults those juveniles who commit violent crimes and are at 
least 16 years old. We can disagree on whether or not juveniles should 
be tried as adults, but, nonetheless, it is an important enough issue 
that we should have debated it on the floor here today and let Members 
decide that. And yet that was not made in order.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) had an 
amendment that establishes funding for prevention and intervention 
programs for the suppression of youth and gang violence. That was 
deemed to not be made in order.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardoza), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) had an 
amendment that authorizes the expansion and the enhancement of law 
enforcement and community-based prevention and intervention programs 
targeting criminal street gangs, gang members and at-risk youth. That 
was ruled out of order by the Committee on Rules. I mean, I can go on 
and on and on. There are really good ideas here, and yet, for whatever 
reason, the Committee on Rules last night said they are not going to 
have their day on the House floor. And I do not understand why, and 
nobody who has spoken on the other side has explained to me why those 
amendments were not made in order, not even the Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules. We have the time. This is an important issue. These 
amendments should have been made in order. And, quite frankly, I think 
it is a disgrace and does a great disservice to a lot of people in this 
country who care about this issue that these Members were denied their 
right to offer these amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the bill's author.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I think, if one is around here long enough, 
they get to the point where they do not believe they could be shocked 
by anything. But when I heard the other side a while ago say that they 
believe that giving arts and crafts to violent gang members will do 
more to deter crime than empowering law enforcement agents and locking 
up gang members in jail, that, I have to admit, still shocks me.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the National 
Latino Peace Officers Association, which supports all the provisions of 
this bill and asks that this bill be passed; from the Fraternal Order 
of Police that supports this bill and asks that it be passed; from the 
National Association of Police Organizations, which supports this bill 
and asks that it be passed; from the National Sheriffs' Association, 
which supports the provisions of this bill and asks that it be passed; 
from the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, which supports the 
provisions of this bill and asks that it be passed; from the National 
Troopers Coalition; from the California Gang Investigators Association; 
from the Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs office; and from the Major County 
Sheriffs' Association.
  And, Mr. Speaker, we will have a lot more as the day goes on.

                           Major County Sheriff's Association,

                             Alexandria, Virginia, April 20, 2005.
     Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the Major County 
     Sheriffs' Association, I am writing to express our support 
     for H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection 
     Act of 2005.'' This much needed legislation takes a necessary 
     step toward addressing the growing epidemic of gang violence 
     that is affecting our entire nation and has even stretched 
     into some of our most rural communities.
       The Department of Justice estimates there are currently 
     over 25,000 gangs and over 750,000 gang members who are 
     active in more than 3,000 jurisdictions across the United 
     States. Gang activity has been directly linked to the 
     narcotics trade, human trafficking, identification 
     documentation falsification and the use of firearms to commit 
     deadly shootings.
       H.R. 1279 would address the growing problem of gang 
     violence by creating a rational strategy to identify, 
     apprehend and prosecute gangs across the nation. 
     Specifically, the bill would provide for the designation of 
     High Intensity Gang Areas (HIGAs) to identify, target and 
     eliminate violent gangs in areas where gang activity is 
     particularly prevalent.
       The bill would also create a statute to prosecute criminal 
     gangs similar to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 
     Organizations statute (RICO) that has proven so effective 
     against organized crime, and would provide more than $385 
     million over the next five years in grants to support 
     Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts against 
     violent gangs, and to coordinate law enforcement agencies' 
     efforts to share intelligence and jointly prosecute violent 
     gangs.
       Finally, under H.R. 1279, several categories of gang-
     related offense would be subject to mandatory minimum 
     sentences of at least 30 years in prison for cases of 
     kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault or maiming.
       The ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 
     2005'' is a comprehensive piece of legislation that addresses 
     both the enforcement and prosecution aspects of the battle 
     against gang violence.
       Thank you for your time and attention, as well as your 
     continued support of law enforcement.
           Sincerely,
                                      Sheriff Michael J. Bouchard,
                         MCSA Vice President--Legislative Affairs.
                                          Sheriff James A. Karnes,
                                                   MCSA President.

[[Page 9157]]

     
                                  ____
                                                   Association for


                            Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Inc.,

                          Los Angeles, California, April 20, 2005.
     Re H.R. 1179--Support; H.R. 1518--Support

     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the members of 
     the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS), 
     which represents over 7,000 deputy sheriffs and district 
     attorney investigators in Los Angeles County. I am writing in 
     support of H.R. 1279, The Gang Deterrence and Community 
     Protection Act of 2005, and H.R. 1528, Defending America's 
     Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child 
     Protection Act of 2005.
       H.R. 1279, The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act 
     of 2005 not only designates high intensity gang areas and 
     authorizes funds to combat gang activity, it creates a new 
     gang prosecution statute; increases penalties for violent 
     gang crimes; and limits a criminal street gang to a group or 
     association of three or more individuals that commit two or 
     more gang crimes.
       H.R. 1528, Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access 
     to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005, provides 
     for sound statutory reforms of ineffective anti-drug laws 
     designed to protect children.
       ALADS strongly supports both H.R. 1279, and H.R. 1528.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Roy L. Burns,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                   California Gang


                                    Investigators Association,

                             Huntington Beach, CA, April 25, 2005.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: Mr. Chairman, as 
     President of the California Gang Investigators Association 
     (CGIA) I am writing to offer the support of the Association 
     for H.R. 1279, The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection 
     Act of 2005 and H.R. 1528, Defending America's Most 
     Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child 
     Protection Act of 2005. The Association supports the 
     legislative effort to curb gang violence and the associated 
     criminal drug networks that goes hand-in-hand with street 
     gang activity. We have supported the efforts of Senators 
     Hatch and Feinstein in their anti-gang efforts and stand 
     ready to be of any assistance we can be in your committee's 
     efforts to obtain the same goals.
       Street gangs continue to spread their unique brand of urban 
     terrorism across our nation. Not only have they become 
     prevalent in most urban inner cities, but have become a 
     scourge in our rural communities as well, presenting a threat 
     to this nation's bread basket. As I travel around this 
     country lecturing to these communities it seems their primary 
     concern for their personal safety is not from some foreign 
     terrorist but their greatest fear is of the local street 
     gangs. Hundreds upon hundreds of Americans are slain every 
     year by street gangs, and thousands more injured.
       This legislation provides new law which will aid in this 
     strugg1e, not only attacking the gangs but with its companion 
     bill, begins to focus on their drug business as well.
       If our association can be of any further assistance to you 
     please feel free to contact me.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Wesley D. McBride,
     President.
                                  ____



                                  National Troopers Coalition,

                                                    Green Bay, WI.
     Re H.R. 1279--Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 
         2005

     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chair, House Judiciary Committee,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: As Chairman of the National 
     Troopers Coalition, (NTC) I am writing to express our support 
     for H.R. 1279, Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act 
     of 2005. The NTC represents over 40,000 state troopers and 
     highway patrolmen throughout the United States.
       We urge you to continue your work on fighting Gang Violence 
     in America; we support all of the provisions contained in 
     H.R. 1279.
       Our members continue to deal with increased gang crimes and 
     violence, as we have for years. The provisions of H.R. 1279, 
     that in part deal with increased penalties, clarification of 
     definitions, and increased resources and appropriations will 
     greatly aid us and our law enforcement counterparts with gang 
     investigations, deterrence and prevention.
       Accordingly, on behalf of our members, we fully support and 
     urge passage of H.R. 1279.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Casey L. Perry,
     Chairman, National Troopers Coalition.
                                  ____

                                               The Law Enforcement


                                          Alliance of America,

                                Falls Church, Va., April 19, 2005.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman, House Judiciary Committee,
     House of Representatives, Washington DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the more than 
     75,000 Members and Supporters of the Law Enforcement Alliance 
     of America (LEAA), I am writing to express our strong support 
     for the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005 
     (H.R. 1279). This legislation provides law enforcement and 
     prosecutors with much needed tools to combat the growing 
     organized threat of violence from criminal street gangs.
       Today's gang violence problem is not one of neighborhoods, 
     but increasingly an interstate and even international 
     operation involving highly structured and extremely violent 
     criminal enterprises. H.R. 1279 recognizes this growing 
     menace and provides a much needed response.
       By providing state and local law enforcement with the 
     additional resources to pursue such criminals and giving 
     prosecutors additional tools to punish such criminals. H.R. 
     1279 offers a significant opportunity to make an impact in 
     the fight against violent crime. I respectfully ask for your 
     support for this much needed federal initiative. If you have 
     any questions about LEAA's position on H.R. 1279 or any other 
     matter, feel free to have your staff contact our Legislative 
     Director, Kevin Watson at (703) 847-2677.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James J. Fotis,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                               National Sheriffs' Association,

                             Alexandria, Virginia, April 19, 2005.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washingtn, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: I am writing on behalf of the 
     National Sheriffs' Association and the 3,087 sheriffs across 
     the country to express our full support for H.R. 1279, the 
     ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005.'' 
     This much needed legislation takes a necessary step toward 
     addressing the growing epidemic of gang violence that is 
     affecting our entire nation and has even stretched into some 
     of our most rural communities.
       The Department of Justice estimates there are currently 
     over 25,000 gangs and over 750,000 gang members who are 
     active in more than 3,000 jurisdictions across the United 
     States. Gang activity has been directly linked to the 
     narcotlcs trade, human trafficking, identification 
     documentation falsification and the use of firearms to commit 
     deadly shootings.
       H.R. 1279 would effectively address the growing problem of 
     gang violence by creating a rational strategy to identify, 
     apprehend, and prosecute gangs across the nation. 
     Specifically, the bill would provide for the designation of 
     High Intensity Gang Areas (HIGAs) to identify, target and 
     eliminate violent gangs in areas where gang activity is 
     particularly prevalent.
       The bill would also create a statute to prosecute criminal 
     gangs similar to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 
     Organizations statute (RICO) that has proven so effective 
     against organized crime, and would provide more than $385 
     million over the next five years in grants to support 
     Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts against 
     violent gangs, and to coordinate law enforcement agencies' 
     efforts to share intelligence and jointly prosecute violent 
     gangs.
       Finally, under H.R. 1279, several categories of gang-
     related offense would be subject to mandatory minimum 
     sentences of at least 30 years in prison for cases of 
     kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault or maiming.
       The ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 
     2005'' is a comprehensive piece of legislation that addresses 
     both the enforcement and prosecution aspects of the battle 
     against gang violence.
       The National Sheriffs' Association and its member sheriffs 
     fully endorse H.R. 1279 and thank you for your continued 
     support of law enforcement.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Thomas N. Faust,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                    Police Organizations, Inc.

                                 Washington. D.C., April 15, 2005.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the National 
     Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), representing 
     236,000 rank-and-file police officers from across the United 
     States, I would like to thank you for introducing the ``Gang 
     Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005,'' and advise 
     you of our support for the legislation. If enacted, this 
     legislation will greatly assist state and local law 
     enforcement in their efforts against gang expansion and 
     violence.
       Recent studies on gangs have estimated that over 25,000 
     different gangs, comprising over 750,000 members are active 
     across the United States. 100 percent of all cities larger 
     than 250,000 have reported gang activity. Compounding this 
     problem, gangs have been directly linked to narcotics trade, 
     human trafficking, identification document falsification, 
     violent maiming, assault and murder, and the use of firearms 
     to commit deadly shootings. The ``Gang Deterrence and 
     Community Protection Act'' works to reduce gang violence by 
     designating High Intensity Gang Areas (HIGAs) and authorizing 
     $20 million per year over five years to combat gang

[[Page 9158]]

     activity. It also creates a new gang prosecution statute 
     focusing on street gangs and increases the penalties for 
     violent gang crimes, strengthening prosecutors' ability to 
     combat gang activities.
       NAPO looks forward to fighting for this legislation's 
     passage and I thank you for your continued support of law 
     enforcement. If you have any questions, please feel free to 
     contact me, or NAPO's Legislative Assistant, Andrea 
     Mournighan, at (202) 842-4420.
           Sincerely
                                               William J. Johnson,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                      Grand Lodge,


                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2005.
     Hon. J. Randy Forbes,
     House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
       Dear Representative Forbes: I am writing on behalf of the 
     members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our 
     strong support for H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and 
     Community Protection Act of 2005.''
       This legislation will attack the growing problem of 
     criminal gang activity by providing increased Federal 
     funding, almost $390 million, to support Federal, State and 
     local law enforcement efforts to combat gang activity. The 
     bill aims to facilitate greater cooperation between law 
     enforcement officers and prosecutors at every level of 
     government by providing for the designation of certain 
     locations as ``high intensity interstate gang activity 
     areas.'' This strategy, modeled after the High Intensity Drug 
     Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program, will enable law enforcement 
     in these designated areas to build successful 
     multijurisdictional efforts targeting criminal street gangs 
     using Federal funds. Law enforcement agencies in these 
     designated areas will be able to call on Federal resources to 
     hire additional State and local prosecutors and purchase 
     technology to increase their abliity to identify and 
     prosecute violent offenders.
       The legislation also creates new criminal gang prosecution 
     offenses and enhances existing gang and violent crime 
     penalties to deter and punish illegal gang activity. The bill 
     would also allow 16-year olds to be charged as adults in 
     Federal court for crimes of violence.
       We believe that our nation's law enforcement officers can 
     be more effective at fighting the menace of criminal gangs if 
     they have the necessary resources that this legislation 
     provides. I want to commend you for your leadership on this 
     issue. If I can be of any further help on this or any other 
     issue, please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive 
     Director Jim Pasco through my Washington office.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
     Nationl President.
                                  ____

                                                    April 18, 2005
     Re Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act H.R. 1279

     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chair, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, D.C.
       Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: As the House Judiciary 
     Committee continues its work on Gang Violence in America, on 
     behalf of the National Latino Peace Officers Association 
     (NLPOA), we support all of the provisions contained in H.R. 
     1279 and urge the Committee to adopt all of the provisions to 
     strengthen federal law enforcement's capabilities on 
     combating the growing gang violence in America:
       18 U.S.C. 521 Criminal Street Gang Prosecutions, increasing 
     the penalty for such criminal acts on behalf of a criminal 
     gang;
       Defining Gang Crime for federal prosecution;
       Increased Penalties for Racketeering Crimes on behalf of 
     the criminal gangs;
       Modification of the Definition of a Crime of Violence; and
       Increasing Resources and Appropriations in the newly 
     defined High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas.
       NLPOA members have dealt with gang crimes and gang violence 
     for the last 32 years and are experts in this arena; with 
     respect to gang investigations, deterrence, and prevention. 
     The NLPOA recognizes that many gangs are more sophisticated 
     and have more resources than local police departments. 
     Designating federal resources through increase penalties and 
     federal task forces will help Keep America Safe!
           Sincerely,
                                                  Felipe A. Ortiz,
                                         NLPOA National President.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What shocks me is that we have people who get up and talk about the 
importance of supporting our local law enforcement officials, and at 
the same time, we are supporting budgets that cut money to our local 
law enforcement agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the National 
Council of La Raza opposing this bill. I also include for the Record a 
statement that has been signed by the American Bar Association, the 
American Civil Liberties Union, Chamber of Commerce of the United 
States, the Children's Defense Fund, the Commission on Social Action of 
Reform Judaism, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National 
Urban League, Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights, the NAACP, the 
National Federation of Independent Business, and the United States 
Conference on Catholic Bishops, all in opposition to this legislation. 
I also include for the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter that has been 
signed by the President of Catholic Charities USA, also opposed to this 
legislation. And I include for the Record, so that it is there, the 16 
amendments that the majority of the Committee on Rules decided to not 
make in order today on this important legislation.

                                  National Council of La Raza,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2005.
     Re Oppose provisions in the ``gang buster bill'' H.R. 1279 
         that prosecute youth as adults and impose mandatory 
         minimum sentences.

       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the National Council 
     of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Latino civil rights 
     organization in the U.S., I urge you to oppose provisions 
     contained in the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection 
     Act of 2005'' (H.R. 1279) which is on the suspension calendar 
     this week. Please be advised that NCLR will recommend that 
     votes relevant to the Latino community and final passage of 
     the bill be included in the National Hispanic Leadership 
     Agenda Congressional Scorecard.
       The Latino community is directly affected by gang violence, 
     consequently NCLR is committed to finding a solution to 
     combat it; however, the approach in H.R. 1279 is ineffective, 
     irresponsible and simplistic, given that it does nothing to 
     get to the root causes of the problem, and it further 
     exacerbate youth violent behavior. H.R. 1279 will if enacted 
     into law, would have a disparate impact on Latino youth and 
     their families. This bill would undermine overa11 public 
     safety, given that it imposes excessively severe measures 
     aimed at only punishing and not reforming youth violent 
     behavior. Specifically, NCLR strongly opposes two 
     provisions--the prosecution and transfer of youth into the 
     adult system and the inclusion of various mandatory minimum 
     sentences for a broad category of offenses that are labeled 
     ``gang crimes'' and numerous other offenses.
       Section 115 of the bill allows for the prosecution and 
     transfer of youth into the adult system. The latest research 
     shows that transferring youth to adult status is a failed 
     public policy approach, resulting in the opposite of what 
     this bill is purporting to do. It will increase--not 
     decrease--youth violence. The research shows that young 
     people prosecuted as adults, compared to those prosecuted as 
     juveniles, are more likely to: (a) commit a greater number of 
     crimes upon release; (b) commit more violent crimes upon 
     release; and (c) commit crimes sooner upon release. The 
     research also shows that youth held in adult facilities, 
     compared to youth held in juvenile facilities, are five times 
     as likely to be sexually assaulted by other inmates, twice as 
     likely to be beaten by staff, 50% more likely to be assaulted 
     with a weapon, and eight times as likely to commit suicide.
       With these kinds of risks, it does not make sense for the 
     House to pursue legislation that includes the power to 
     prosecute juveniles as adults in federal court for activities 
     that the states are already well-equipped--indeed, better-
     equipped--to handle than the federal system. Also, putting 
     the transfer decision at the sole discretion of a prosecutor, 
     not a judge as the law currently requires, violates the most 
     basic principles of due process and fairness.
       Section 103 of the bill includes and expands mandatory 
     minimum sentences for a broad category of offenses that are 
     deemed ``gang crime.'' Under this bill, the mandatory minimum 
     sentences for these crimes range: from 5 to 30 years. 
     Although the offenses are serious and individuals who are 
     convicted should be properly held accountable, mandatory 
     sentences often prevent judges from determining the 
     appropriate punishment. When judges are restricted by 
     mandatory sentences, they cannot assess an individua1s 
     culpability during the crime or other factors that have 
     bearing on recidivism, thus resulting in inappropriate 
     sentences.
       Although mandatory minimums were intended to reduce the 
     racial disparities that were associated with indeterminate 
     sentencing, in practice they exacerbate and mask such 
     disparities by shifting discretion from the judge to the 
     prosecutor. Prosecutors retain the power to plea bargain by 
     offering defendants plea agreements that avoid the mandatory 
     penalty. Studies have shown that this discretion results in a 
     disparity in sentencing outcomes based largely on race and 
     quality of defense attorney. According to testimony from the 
     U.S. Sentencing Commission, in 1999, 39% of those receiving 
     mandatory sentences were Hispanic, 38% were African American, 
     and 23% were White. Hipanics comprised 44% of those subject 
     to

[[Page 9159]]

     five-year mandatory sentences in 1999, 37% of the ten-year 
     mandatory sentences, 20% of the 20-year mandatory sentences, 
     and 8% of the mandatory life sentences. The reality for 
     African American defendants is even bleaker.
       NCLR respectfully asks you to oppose legislation that 
     prosecutes and transfers youth into the adult system and that 
     includes and expands mandatory minimum sentences. These 
     provisions will only exacerbate youth violent behavior, at a 
     time when data from the FBI's Uniform Crime reporting program 
     that breaks down the age of people arrested for serious 
     offenses in 2003 showed that the number of people under 18 
     arrested declined by 30%. Instead, NCLR calls for a 
     comprehensive research--based approach that gets at the root 
     causes of youth violence--which includes but is not limited 
     to prevention, treatment, and effective alternatives to 
     incarceration. If you have any questions please contact 
     Angela Arboleda, NCLR Civil Rights Policy Analyst, at (202) 
     776-1789.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Janet Murguia,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                                     June 2, 2004.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We write to express our strong concern 
     about the unintended consequences that will result from 
     Section 206 of The Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence 
     Act of 2003--S. 1735. Although Section 206 has been removed 
     from the bill by amendment, we understand discussions are 
     underway to reinsert it.
       Section 206 would change the general definition of a crime 
     of violence to require only a ``substantial risk of . . . 
     injury to a person or property,'' and not physical force. 
     Violence, however, is commonly defined as physical force. 
     Thus, removing the ``physical force'' requirement from crimes 
     of violence undermines the purpose of having a special 
     category of heinous crimes.
       Moreover, this new definition would broaden crimes of 
     violence to include a number of regulatory violations 
     targeted at businesses. For example, felony violations of 
     environmental statutes, such as the Clean Water Act, Clean 
     Air Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which 
     criminalize violations of both statutory and regulatory 
     requirements, could be deemed crimes of violence. In many 
     cases, these violations are ``technical'' in nature, 
     including recordkeeping, reporting, training, etc, and have 
     very low criminal intent standards. With a mere ``knowing'' 
     violation--which requires neither knowledge by the defendant 
     of the underlying regulations or the law nor an intention to 
     violate the law--a business and its officers and employees 
     are especially vulnerable to criminal penalties. If 
     conviction under the particular statute can result in a I-
     year prison sentence, thus making it a felony, and if the 
     violation risked injury to a person or the property of 
     another, under the proposed new definition the violation 
     would be a violent crime.
       This designation serves as a trigger for a host of 
     consequences, including longer sentences under the federal 
     sentencing guidelines, and a doubling of the statute of 
     limitations. The current statute of limitations for all 
     environmental crimes is five years from the date the 
     violation occurred. As a crime of violence, the statute of 
     limitations would be the greater of either ten years from the 
     occurrence or eight years from discovery of the alleged 
     violation. In addition, conviction of any crime that is 
     labeled a ``crime of violence'' under this proposed statute 
     brings deportation without right of appeal for legal 
     immigrants working for a company, and potential federal money 
     laundering charges, which can result in substantial asset 
     forfeiture.
       While we certainly recognize that these consequences were 
     not the intent of this legislation, this provision could have 
     an unjust impact on business. We ask that you give serious 
     consideration our concerns as you continue to work on this 
     issue. Thank you for your attention to this very important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
       Chamber of Commerce of the United States.
       Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
       National Petrochemical & Refiners Association.
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
       Business Civil Liberties, Inc.
       American Chemistry Council.
                                  ____

       No. 25 Capuano/Weiner: The amendment reauthorizes the 
     Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program for 
     FY2006-FY2008.
       No. 26 Crowley: The amendment requires that the purchase of 
     firearms, ammunition and explosives to be made in person and 
     requires records to be kept on how the purchases were made.
       No. 23 Jackson Lee: The amendment would make it illegal to 
     transfer a firearm to any individual that the Federal 
     government has designated as a suspected or known gang member 
     or terrorist. It also establishes a system that would assist 
     any individual who is wrongly included on such a list to have 
     his or her name removed.
       No. 24 Jackson Lee/Scott/Delahunt/Waters: The amendment 
     strikes the section of the bill that allows the Attorney 
     General to charge as adults those juveniles who commit 
     violent crimes and are at least 16 years old.
       No. 15 Eddie Bernice Johnson: The amendment establishes 
     funding for prevention and intervention programs for the 
     suppression of youth and gang violence.
       No. 2 Schiff/Cardoza/Watson/Linda Sanchez: The amendment 
     authorizes the expansion and enhancement of law enforcement 
     and community-based prevention and intervention programs 
     targeting criminal street gangs, gang members, and at-risk 
     youth.
       No. 21 Waters: The amendment creates a ``Gang Exit 
     Program'' to facilitate the re-entry of ex-gang members into 
     society. This program would provide relocation programs, 
     educational programs, special student loans, and housing to 
     ex-gang members.


                                 Others

       No. 14 Davis (IL): The amendment strikes the provision in 
     the bill that calls for a minimum mandatory 10 year jail 
     term.
       No. 12 Davis (IL): This amendment would strike section 110 
     and preserve language in current law regarding venue in 
     capital cases.
       No. 13 Davis (IL): The amendment strikes the section of the 
     bill that gives the Attorney General the discretion to charge 
     as adults juveniles who commit violent crimes and are at 
     least 16 years old.
       No. 22 Jackson Lee: The amendment clarifies that the 
     defendant, and not just a member of the gang, must have 
     committed criminal activity related to the capital case in 
     the jurisdiction where the prosecutor seeks to bring the 
     charge.
       No. 16 Eddie Bernice Johnson: The amendment establishes 
     funding for regional databases that track gang activity in 
     high intensity gang areas. These databases contain critical 
     information on gangs, gang members, firearms, criminal 
     activities and histories, vehicles, and other fields of 
     information necessary to investigators in solving gang 
     related crimes.
       No. 7 Scott: The amendment makes application of the death 
     penalty under the bill contingent upon appropriation of the 
     authorized levels to protect innocence under Title IV of the 
     ``Justice For All Act of 2004.''
       No. 8 Scott: The amendment restricts the application of the 
     death penalty to intentional acts of the defendant.
       No. 9 Scott: The amendment strikes section 115, which gives 
     the Attorney General authority to prosecute certain juveniles 
     without court assessment or review.
       No. 10 Scott: The amendment uses the $57.5 million 
     authorized in the bill for 94 new U.S. Attorneys to go, 
     instead, to local law enforcement to prevent and reduce the 
     formation or continuation of juvenile gangs and the use and 
     sale of illegal drugs by juveniles.
       No. 11 Scott: The amendment modifies the definition of a 
     ``gang crime'' so that only the more serious violent offenses 
     are included.
                                  ____

                                                      May 6, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the United States 
     Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities USA, we 
     urge you to oppose provisions in H.R. 1279, Gang Deterrence 
     and Community Protection Act of 2005, the (Gang Bill) that 
     would expand the use of the death penalty, treat juveniles as 
     adults and impose mandatory minimum sentences.
       First, we strongly oppose any provision in the bill that 
     would expand the use of the death penalty. As you may be 
     aware, the bishops of the United States oppose the use of the 
     death penalty. Catholic teaching on capital punishment is 
     clear, ``If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human 
     lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and 
     the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself 
     to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete 
     conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to 
     the dignity of the human person'' (Catechism of the Catholic 
     Church).
       Secondly, we urge you to eliminate any provisions in the 
     legislation that would result in the expanded ``transfer'' or 
     ``waiver'' of youth to the adult criminal system and/or 
     placing an additional number of youth in adult correctional 
     facilities. While there is no question that violent and 
     dangerous youth need to be confined for our safety and 
     theirs, we cannot support provisions that treat children as 
     though they are equal to adults. As we stated in our 2000 
     pastoral statement on criminal justice, we believe that 
     placing juveniles in the adult court system is not a solution 
     to reducing gang activity.
       We bishops cannot support policies that treat young 
     offenders as though they are adults. The actions of the most 
     violent youth leave us shocked and frightened and therefore 
     they should be removed from society until they are no longer 
     dangerous. But society must never respond to children who 
     have committed crimes as though they are somehow equal to 
     adults--fully formed in conscience and fully aware of their 
     actions. Placing children in adult jails is a sign of 
     failure, not a solution. (Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and 
     Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal 
     Justice, November 15, 2000).

[[Page 9160]]

       Additionally, removing youth from state juvenile justice 
     systems greatly reduces their chances of receiving necessary 
     treatment and intervention programs. Unlike state systems 
     around the country, the federal system does not have any 
     specialized programs or facilities to accommodate young 
     people or to a address the root problems, such as abuse, that 
     these children are experiencing at home or on the streets. 
     This emphasis on swift punishment rather than effective 
     treatment and intervention demonstrates a fundamental 
     misunderstanding of the street gang culture and is tantamount 
     to giving up on our children--something that our faith 
     tradition teaches we should never do. Rather, we believe the 
     challenge as responsible adults is to create a fairer and 
     more effective youth justice system, where there is a balance 
     between prevention, treatment and intervention that gives 
     young people a chance to make better choices. Unfortunately, 
     we believe several provisions in H.R. 1279 do not rise to the 
     challenge.
       Finally, we urge you to oppose language in the bill that 
     includes and expands mandatory minimum sentences for a broad 
     category of offenses that are deemed gang crime. In the Gang 
     Bill, the mandatory minimum sentences for gang related crimes 
     range from five to thirty years. Although the offenses are 
     serious and individuals who are convicted ought to be 
     properly held accountable, rigid sentencing formulations 
     could prevent judges from properly assessing an individual's 
     culpability during the crime or other factors that have 
     bearing on recidivism, thus sometimes resulting in harsh and 
     inappropriate sentences. From our experience, arbitrarily 
     expanding mandatory minimum sentences does nothing to deter 
     youth gang violence and we urge you to oppose any such 
     provisions.
       Thank you for your consideration of this very important 
     issue. Should you have any questions or comments, please do 
     not hesitate to contact Mr. Andrew Rivas in our office of 
     Social Development and World Peace, 202-541-3190, 
     [email protected], or Ms. Lucreda Cobbs at Catholic Charities 
     USA, 703-549-1390, [email protected]. With 
     every good wish, we are
           Faithfully yours,
     Most Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio,
       Diocese of Brooklyn, Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee, 
     United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
     Rev. Larry Snyder,
       President, Catholic Charities USA.
                                  ____



                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2005.
       Dear Representative: Oppose the ineffective policies 
     proposed in H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community 
     Protection Act of 2005.
       Representative Randy Forbes (R-VA) has introduced H.R.1279, 
     the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005 
     (``Gang bill''). The Gang bill could subject innocent people 
     to the death penalty, creates numerous discriminatory 
     mandatory minimum sentences, could result in wrongfully 
     convictions based on unreliable evidence, and creates more 
     serious juvenile offenders by incarcerating children in adult 
     prisons. H.R. 1279 is scheduled for a vote on the House Boor 
     on Wednesday, May 11, 2005, we strongly urge you to oppose 
     this legislation.
       Congress should not expand the Federal death penalty until 
     it ensures innocent people are not on death row.
       Expansion of the federal death penalty undermines the very 
     reforms that were enacted in last year's Justice for All Act 
     (P.L. 108-405), which addressed some systemic problems with 
     the federal death penalty. H.R. 1279 would create several new 
     offenses and make them punishable by the death penalty as 
     well as increase the penalty for several existing federal 
     offenses to the possibility of a death sentence.
       The death penalty is in need of reform, not expansion. 
     According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 119 
     prisoners on death row have now been exonerated. Chronic 
     problems, including inadequate defense counsel and racial 
     disparities, plague the death penalty system in the United 
     States. The expansion of the death penalty potential for gang 
     crimes creates an opportunity for more arbitrary application 
     of the death penalty. States continue to address the systemic 
     problems with the administration of the death penalty by 
     implementing reform and moratorium efforts, while the federal 
     government, in H.R. 1279, is moving to expand the death 
     penalty in lieu of enacting or implementing reforms on the 
     federal level.
       In addition to expanding the number of federal death 
     penalty crimes, Section 110 of the bill expands venue in 
     capital cases to the point that any location even 
     tangentially related to the crime could be the site of a 
     trial. Studies of the federal death penalty show that a 
     person prosecuted in Texas is much more likely to be charged, 
     tried and sentenced to death in a capital case than a person 
     who is prosecuted for the same crime in Massachusetts. This 
     bill will exacerbate these geographic inequities that exist 
     in the federal death penalty system. The wide range of 
     discretion in both what to charge and where to bring the 
     charge will give prosecutors tremendous latitude to forum 
     shop. This broad discretion will increase the racial and 
     geographic disparities already at play in the federal death 
     penalty.
       People could be convicted of a ``gang'' crime even if they 
     are not members of a gang.
       This bill would impose severe penalties for a collective 
     group of three or more people who commit ``gang'' crimes. 
     Even more disconcerting is that a person could receive the 
     death penalty for the illegal participation in what would be 
     considered a ``criminal street gang'' while having no idea or 
     intention of being a part of a so-called ``gang.'' H.R. 1279 
     revises the already broad definition of ``criminal street 
     gang'' to an even more ambiguous standard of a formal or 
     informal group or association of three (3) or more people who 
     commit two (2) or more ``gang'' crimes. The number of people 
     required to form a gang decreases from five (5) people in an 
     ongoing group under current law to three (3) people who could 
     just be associates or casual acquaintances under this 
     proposed legislation.
       Under the Gang bill a ``continuing series'' of crimes does 
     not have to be established to charge a person with a gang 
     crime. Presently, the government has to establish that 
     criminal street gangs engaged ``within the past five (5) 
     years in a continuing series of offenses.'' The continuing 
     series of offenses under current law is essential to 
     preserving the concept of gang activity that the law is 
     trying to target, i.e. criminal activity that has some type 
     of connection to a tight knit group of people. This broader 
     definition of gang crime in H.R. 1279 would result in people 
     being convicted of ``gang'' crimes that are neither ongoing 
     in nature nor connected to each other, and could occur 10, 15 
     or 20 years apart.
       H.R. 1279 further erodes federal judges' sentencing 
     discretion by proposing harsher mandatory minimum sentences.
       This legislation further erodes the sentencing discretion 
     of judges by imposing mandatory minimums that would result in 
     unfair and discriminatory prison sentences. Many of the 
     enhanced gang penalties in this bill are mandatory minimum 
     sentences or death. Mandatory minimum sentences deprive 
     judges of the ability to impose sentences that fit the 
     particular offense and offender. Although in theory mandatory 
     minimums were created to address disparate sentences that 
     resulted from indeterminate sentencing systems, in reality 
     they shift discretion from the judge to the prosecutor. 
     Prosecutors hold all the power over whether a defendant gets 
     a plea bargain in order for that defendant to avoid the 
     mandatory sentence. 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.
       H.R. 1279 jeopardizes a person's right to a fair trial and 
     creates the possibility that innocent people would be held 
     for long periods of time prior to a trial.
       Innocent people could be convicted of crimes they did not 
     commit if the statute of limitations is extended as proposed 
     in this legislation. The Gang bill proposes to extend the 
     statute of limitations for non-capital crimes of violence. 
     Generally, the statute of limitations for non-capital federal 
     crimes is five (5) years after the offense is committed. This 
     bill would extend that limitation for crimes of violence to 
     15 years after the offense was committed or the continuing 
     offense was completed. For example, if a violent crime was 
     committed in 2005, but a person was not indicted until 2020, 
     that individual could be charged with a crime 15 years later. 
     In 2020, 15 years after the crime, alibi witnesses could have 
     disappeared or died, other witnesses' memories would have 
     faded and evidence may be unreliable. The use of questionable 
     evidence could affect a person's ability to defend themselves 
     against charges and to receive a fair trial.
       Shifting the burden of proof for pretrial detention in some 
     cases involving guns could result in serious injustices and 
     interfere with an accused person's defense. This legislation 
     would create a rebuttal presumption against bail for people 
     accused of certain firearms offenses during the commission of 
     serious drug crimes. A person who is presumed innocent and 
     has not been found guilty of any crime could be held for 
     months or years without the government having made any 
     showing that he or she is dangerous or a flight risk. Making 
     it more difficult for an accused person to be released on 
     bail prior to trial hinders a defendant's ability to assist 
     their defense lawyer with investigating the facts of the case 
     and preparing their defense.
       Children would be put in Federal prison with little 
     opportunity for education or rehabilitation.
       Under the Gangs bill, more children will become hardened 
     criminals after being tried in federal court and incarcerated 
     in adult prisons. Currently under federal law, when the 
     government recommends trying a juvenile as an adult in 
     federal court various factors must be considered by the court 
     before

[[Page 9161]]

     deciding whether the criminal prosecution of a young person 
     is in the interest of justice. These factors include the age, 
     social background, and the intellectual development and 
     psychological maturity of the child. H.R. 1279 would give the 
     prosecutor the discretion to determine when to try a young 
     person in federal court as an adult, if the juvenile is 16 
     years of age or older and commits a crime of violence.
       The decision by a prosecutor to try a juvenile as an adult 
     cannot be reviewed by a judge under this legislation. This 
     unreviewable process of transferring youth to adult federal 
     court is particularly troubling when juveniles are not 
     routinely prosecuted in the federal system and there are no 
     resources or facilities to address the needs of youth. The 
     federal government should continue to let states deal with 
     juveniles in their family court systems that were created to 
     address the needs and provide services to young people. 
     Furthermore, a 1996 study showed that youth transferred to 
     adult court in Florida were a third more likely to reoffend 
     than those sent to the juvenile justice system for the same 
     crime and with similar prior records. Of the youth in this 
     study who committed new crimes, those sent to adult court 
     reoffended at twice the rate of those sent to juvenile court. 
     This research emphasizes the need for juveniles to be held 
     accountable in the juvenile justice system, which has more 
     resources to address the problems that cause children to come 
     to the attention of the court system.
       While efforts to address gang crime are very important to 
     maintaining public safety, this legislation proposes to 
     confront crime at the expense of the right to a fair trial, 
     at the risk of convicting innocent people and unnecessary 
     exposure to the death penalty. H.R. 1279 will not solve the 
     problem of gang crime in this country, thus members should 
     oppose this bill when the House of Representatives votes on 
     Wednesday, May 11, 2005.
           Sincerely,
     Greg Nojeim,
       Acting Director.
     Jesselyn McCurdy,
       Legislative Counsel.
                                  ____


   Vote Wednesday, May 11--Oppose hr. 1279 ``The Gang Deterrence and 
Community Protection Act,'' Ineffective and Costly Federal Intrusion in 
                         State Law Enforcement


       Federalizes traditional state crimes without justification

       H.R. 1279 would federalize all state felonies if related to 
     a ``criminal street gang'' and a host of state violent 
     offenses (whether or not gang-related), thereby significantly 
     expanding the current list of over 4,000 federal crimes 
     (according to a recent Federalist Society report). 
     Traditional state jurisdiction over juvenile matters also 
     would be undermined.
       This approach will skew traditional federal law enforcement 
     priorities, undercut the superior efforts of the states to 
     deal with violent crimes and juvenile offenders, and may 
     exceed constitutional limits on federal power.
       Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, in recent 
     testimony to Congress, recommended enforcing existing laws 
     rather than passing new ones. Existing federal statutes--
     including RICO, Continuing Criminal Enterprise and drug 
     trafficking statutes--have been used to prosecute and 
     severely punish gang members, and these laws are more than 
     adequate to prosecute any gang-related offenses that warrant 
     federal intervention.


     Promotes widely discredited approaches to gang and youth crime

       H.R. 1279 does nothing to promote proven effective programs 
     for dealing with criminal street gangs and youth crimes, such 
     as family and school-based interventions and mentoring 
     programs. The Heritage Foundation provided recent testimony 
     on what measures Congress should support to address the gang 
     problem--including fostering stable neighborhoods, providing 
     after-school activities, and improving local economies--and 
     H.R. 1279 does none of these things.
       H.R. 1279 would result in more youth being prosecuted as 
     adults in the federal system despite research showing that 
     youth transferred to the adult criminal justice system are 
     more likely to re-offend than similarly situated youth who 
     remain in the juvenile justice system.
       As the Judicial Conference of the United States has stated, 
     ``primary responsibility for prosecuting juveniles has 
     traditionally been reserved for the states,'' and ``the 
     federal criminal justice system has little experience and few 
     resources'' for juvenile defendants.


   Exacerbates racial disparities and other significant flaws in the 
                        criminal justice system

       H.R. 1279 expands three criminal justice policies--
     mandatory minimum sentences, capital punishment, and youth 
     transfer to adult prosecution--that are discriminatory 
     towards minority communities.
       Attached to the new federal crimes are 24 new mandatory 
     minimum sentences, which will transfer sentencing power from 
     judges to prosecutors, prescribe unconscionably severe 
     sentences, and increase unwarranted disparity, including 
     racial disparity. Similarly, H.R. 1279 indiscriminately 
     raises penalties for a wide variety of offenses that have 
     nothing to do with street gangs, ranging from carjacking to 
     regulatory violations (e.g., Clean Water Act).
       H.R. 1279 attaches the death penalty to a variety of 
     traditional state crimes and allows prosecutors to forum 
     shop, expanding this error-prone and discriminatory system 
     and flouting community standards regarding the 
     appropriateness of the death penalty for certain crimes.


                 Some Organizations Opposing H.R. 1279

       American Bar Association. American Civil Liberties Union.
       Chamber of Commerce of the United States.
       Children's Defense Fund.
       Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism.
       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
       National Urban League.
       Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights NAACP.
       National Council of La Raza.
       National Federation of Independent Business.
       United States conference of Catholic Bishops.
       For more information, including a full list of opposing 
     organizations, go to www.nacdl.org/Gangs.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If 
the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the 
House to consider the Capuano-Weiner amendment on the COPS program. 
This amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules last night but was 
defeated on a straight party-line vote. This amendment will reauthorize 
the Community Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program, for the 
next 3 years. The COPS program, created as a result of the Violent 
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, focuses on crime 
prevention at the local level. This program puts law enforcement 
professionals on the streets and assigns them a beat so they can build 
mutually beneficial relationships with the people that they serve. By 
earning the trust of members of their community and making those 
individuals invest in their own safety, community policing makes law 
enforcement more efficient and makes America safer.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are really serious about stopping the growing gang 
problem that is occurring in this country, we need to start at the 
local level, and we need to include prevention as well as enforcement. 
I know of no better program to meet this worthy goal than the COPS 
program.
  Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent 
consideration of the gang deterrence bill and it will not affect any of 
the amendments that are in order under this rule. But a ``no'' vote 
will allow us to add this important amendment that is one of our most 
effective tools in the war against violence.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, if we are truly interested 
in dealing with the gang problem in this country, we need to do more 
than pass legislation that sounds tough. We need to have legislation 
that is tough, that will do the job. We need to do more than a press 
release here.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As we bring debate on this rule to a close, I must stress the 
importance of strengthening our communities' efforts against gang 
crime. Like other forms of organized crime, gangs are at the center of 
drug violence, identity theft, bank robberies and many of the deadly 
shootings we read about in the local papers. We need to act in one 
strong voice to indicate that our laws have a

[[Page 9162]]

purpose, that our prosecutors and law enforcement officers mean 
business. Gangs are a national problem, and they will not go away by 
simply putting them into an arts and crafts program or opening up a 
gymnasium to let them play midnight basketball. We can prevent the 
formation of gangs by strengthening our families, and we can deter 
their crimes by breaking their organization and putting them in jail. 
Gangs are no longer simply found in the largest cities but have made 
their way into our rural and suburban communities as well.
  Gangs are a problem which need a resolution because the cost is in 
human lives. One of the more important aspects of the Gang Deterrence 
and Community Protection Act is mandatory minimum sentencing. With 
mandatory sentencing, law enforcement will gain leverage over the 
lower-level gang members, leverage that will put pressure on a gang 
member to ``roll over'' on their leadership. With cooperation comes the 
ability to take down an entire gang network, which is the desired 
effect of this legislation. If there is no threat of doing hard time, 
there is no incentive to cooperate with law enforcement investigators. 
In fact, minimal sentencing of much shorter time is often viewed by 
low-level 16- and 17-year-old gang members as a badge of honor, so-
called ``earning your bones.'' They come out of prison in 6 months to 2 
years and move up the gang chain of command. Plain and simple, 
mandatory minimum penalties are an important piece in protecting the 
public from violent gangs by taking down the system that supports them.
  Mr. Speaker, mandatory sentencing, this is not a new concept. In 
fact, the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2002 contained 20-year 
mandatory minimums for child abductions and earned the support of 178 
Democrats at final passage. Mandatory minimum sentences were part of 
the 2003 PROTECT Act, which passed this body by a vote of 400 to 25. 
The Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act contained mandatory minimum 
sentences, and it passed on suspension. An amendment to the 
intelligence bill that contained mandatory minimum sentencing to assure 
appropriate penalties for serious offenses such as possession of 
atomic, biological and chemical weapons passed 385 to 30. Mandatory 
minimum sentencing has been widely supported by this House and I 
believe works to deter crime. Getting tough on crime requires tough and 
uniform enforcement. We cannot afford to relent in our efforts to deter 
gang crime and enforce our laws. We need to address this problem while 
we have the opportunity and before it grows further out of control. We 
need to invest in new technology, unify our intelligence and strengthen 
our sentencing so law enforcement will have the tools to get gangs off 
the street.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and passage of the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
disappointment with the structured rule that has been set forth for 
debate on H.R. 1279 the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act 
of 2005.'' This bill among other things, could subject innocent people 
to the death penalty, creates numerous discriminatory mandatory minimum 
sentences, could result in wrongful convictions based on unreliable 
evidence, and creates more serious juvenile offenders by incarcerating 
children in adult prisons. These are very serious issues. Issues that 
warrant extensive debate and the opportunity to fix these problems 
before the negative impact is felt. The current rule does not allow for 
such debate.
  Before concluding, I feel it is important that I briefly mention my 
three amendments that were not ruled in order. My first amendment would 
have removed Section 110 of the bill. As written in the bill, a 
prosecutor could bring a capital case in a district that had only a 
limited connection with a crime. My amendment would have clarified that 
the defendant must have committed criminal activity related to the 
capital case in the jurisdiction where the prosecutor seeks to bring 
the charge. In essence, it would have stopped forum shopping which is 
currently allowed under the bill.
  My second amendment would have deleted Section 115 of the bill which 
deals with the transfer of juveniles to adult courts. More 
specifically, the amendment would have prevented the transferring of 
juveniles from juvenile courts to adult courts when a juvenile has 
committed an act, which if committed by an adult, would be a felony. If 
this section is allowed to remain in the bill, more children will 
become hardened criminals after being tried in federal court and 
incarcerated in adult prisons. Currently under federal law, when the 
government recommends trying a juvenile as an adult in federal court 
various factors must be considered by the court before deciding whether 
the criminal prosecution of a young person is in the interest of 
justice. These factors include the age, social background, and the 
intellectual development and psychological maturity of the child.
  The decision by a prosecutor to try a juvenile as an adult cannot be 
reviewed by judge under this legislation. This unreviewable process of 
transferring youth to adult federal court is particularly troubling 
when juveniles are not routinely prosecuted in the federal system and 
there are no resources or facilities to address the needs of youth.
  My third amendment was very straightforward. It would have closed the 
glaring loophole which currently exists in our federal gun laws by 
making it illegal to transfer a firearm to any individual that the 
federal government has designated as a suspected or known gang member 
or terrorist. As many of you know, under current law, neither suspected 
nor actual membership in a gang or terrorist organization is a 
sufficient ground, in and of itself, to prevent the purchase of a 
dangerous firearm. In fact, according to a recently released GAO 
report, over the course of a nine-month span last year, a total of 
fifty-six (56) firearm purchase attempts were made by individuals 
designated as known or suspected gang members or terrorists by the 
federal government.
  In forty-seven (47) of those cases, state and federal authorities 
were forced to permit such transactions to proceed because officials 
were unable to find any disqualifying information, such as a prior 
felony conviction or court-determined `mental defect'. Thus, producing 
a situation whereby suspected or known gang members were, and continue 
to be, free to obtain as many guns as they desire.
  In closing, these are all very important amendments and were aimed at 
fixing many of the problems associated with H.R. 1279. Despite the 
structured rule, I hope my colleagues on both sides will realize the 
importance of this bill and give it the time and attention it deserves.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

    Previous Question for H. Res. 268--Rule on H.R. 1279: The Gang 
             Deterrence & Community Protection Act of 2005

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in 
     order as though printed after the amendment numbered 10 in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by 
     Representative Capuano of Massachusetts or Representative 
     Weiner of New York or a designee. That amendment shall be 
     debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 2__. AUTHORIZATION AND CHANGE OF COPS PROGRAM TO SINGLE 
                   GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 1701 of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) 
     is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall 
     carry out a single grant program under which the Attorney 
     General makes grants to States, units of local government, 
     Indian tribal governments, other public and private entities, 
     and multi-jurisdictional or regional consortia for the 
     purposes described in subsection (b).'';
       (2) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
       (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (b), and 
     in that subsection--
       (A) by striking ``Additional Grant Projects.--Grants made 
     under subsection (a) may include programs, projects, and 
     other activities to--'' and inserting ``Uses of Grant 
     Amounts.--The purposes for which grants made under subsection 
     (a) may be made are--'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (12) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (17), respectively;
       (C) by inserting before paragraph (5) (as so redesignated) 
     the following new paragraphs:
       ``(1) rehire law enforcement officers who have been laid 
     off as a result of State and local budget reductions for 
     deployment in community-oriented policing;
       ``(2) hire and train new, additional career law enforcement 
     officers for deployment in community-oriented policing across 
     the Nation;
       ``(3) procure equipment, technology, or support systems, or 
     pay overtime, to increase the number of officers deployed in 
     community-oriented policing;

[[Page 9163]]

       ``(4) improve security at schools and on school grounds in 
     the jurisdiction of the grantee through--
       ``(A) placement and use of metal detectors, locks, 
     lighting, and other deterrent measures;
       ``(B) security assessments;
       ``(C) security training of personnel and students;
       ``(D) coordination with local law enforcement; and
       ``(E) any other measure that, in the determination of the 
     Attorney General, may provide a significant improvement in 
     security;
       ``(5) pay for officers hired to perform intelligence, anti-
     terror, or homeland security duties exclusively;''; and
       (D) by amending paragraph (9) (as so redesignated) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(8) develop new technologies, including interoperable 
     communications technologies, modernized criminal record 
     technology, and forensic technology, to assist State and 
     local law enforcement agencies in reorienting the emphasis of 
     their activities from reacting to crime to preventing crime 
     and to train law enforcement officers to use such 
     technologies;'';
       (4) by redesignating subsections (e) through (k) as 
     subsections (c) through (i), respectively;
       (5) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated) by striking 
     ``subsection (i)'' and inserting ``subsection (g)''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Matching Funds for School Security Grants.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (i), in the case of a grant under 
     subsection (a) for the purposes described in subsection 
     (b)(4)--
       ``(1) the portion of the costs of a program provided by 
     that grant may not exceed 50 percent;
       ``(2) any funds appropriated by Congress for the activities 
     of any agency of an Indian tribal government or the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs performing law enforcement functions on any 
     Indian lands may be used to provide the non-Federal share of 
     a matching requirement funded under this subsection; and
       ``(3) the Attorney General may provide, in the guidelines 
     implementing this section, for the requirement of paragraph 
     (1) to be waived or altered in the case of a recipient with a 
     financial need for such a waiver or alteration.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1702 of title I of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-1) is amended in subsection (d)(2) by 
     striking ``section 1701(d)'' and inserting ``section 
     1701(b)''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(11) 
     of title I of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(11)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking clause (i) and all that 
     follows through the period at the end and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) $1,007,624,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(ii) $1,027,176,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(iii) $1,047,119,000 for fiscal year 2008.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``section 1701(f)'' and inserting ``section 
     1701(d)''; and
       (B) by striking the third sentence.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 198, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 164]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     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
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     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
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Berkley
     Goode
     Hastings (FL)
     Hyde
     Larson (CT)
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave

                          ____________________