[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9165-9194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          GANG DETERRENCE AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 268 and rule XVIII, the 
Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1279.

                              {time}  1403


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 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, with Mrs. Miller of Michigan 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence 
and Community Protection Act of 2005. This bill is a forward-looking 
and comprehensive approach to a growing national threat: violent and 
vicious criminal gangs in our communities.
  According to the last National Youth Gang Survey, there are now 
between 750,000 and 850,000 gang members in our country. Every city in 
the country with a population of 250,000 or more has reported gang 
activity. There are over 25,000 gangs in more than 3,000 jurisdictions 
in the United States.
  Criminal gangs are no longer just a local problem. In recent years, 
gangs have become nationally-organized criminal syndicates. They are 
disciplined criminal enterprises with leaders, managers and employees, 
with training and structured associations, many of which are now 
international in scope. They are dedicated to enriching themselves 
through criminal activity and terrorizing our communities. The law-
abiding public and State and local law enforcement have sent us a 
strong message: Act now and stop the scourge of violence in our 
communities.
  This legislation has four broad and significant purposes. First, the 
bill authorizes the creation of anti-gang task forces that will bring 
together Federal, State and local law enforcement to conduct complex 
and significant gang prosecutions and provide a national infrastructure 
for the sharing of gang information nationwide. Second, the bill 
creates a new gang crime statute, akin to the RICO statute, that 
addresses specific techniques and criminal strategies used by the 
gangs. Third, the bill increases penalties and clarifies several 
existing statutes for crimes typically committed by gangs. Fourth, the 
bill adopts a limited measure to permit Federal prosecutors to charge 
16- and 17-year-olds in Federal court without going through a lengthy 
and outdated transfer procedure. Current law has hindered law 
enforcement efforts to incapacitate violent 16- and 17-year-old gang 
members in aggravated crimes of violence.
  I would like to underscore one important aspect of this bill. It 
adopts new mandatory minimum penalties that address the seriousness of 
violent crimes committed by gang members. For kidnapping, maiming and 
aggravated sexual abuse, gang members will be subject to a 30-year 
mandatory minimum. For assaults resulting in serious bodily injury; 
that is, nearly killing or permanently disabling a person, gang members 
will face a mandatory minimum of 20 years, and for all other gang 
crimes, gang members will face a 10-year mandatory minimum penalty.
  The mandatory minimums contained in this legislation are carefully 
tailored to deter and disrupt violent gang activity as swiftly as 
possible. These mandatory minimum penalties reflect Congress's duty to 
ensure that violent gang members are consistently and fairly 
incarcerated. Further, prosecutors and law enforcement will tell you 
that in the absence of mandatory guidelines, such penalties are the 
only way to secure the cooperation of lower-level gang members who have 
critical information about the tightly-knit gang structure and gang 
crimes to testify and cooperate against higher-level gang members who 
typically insulate themselves from the day-to-day criminal activity. 
Gang members who wish to avoid the mandatory minimum penalty can do so 
by freely and willingly deciding to cooperate against other gang 
members.
  Madam Chairman, I wish to take a minute to underscore the support for 
this measure from law enforcement, and by that, I mean the brave men 
and women who are on the streets every day putting their lives on the 
line to fight the gang epidemic in our country. Since this measure was 
introduced, we have received strong letters of support from 
organizations representing State and local law enforcement agencies 
across our country, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
National Sheriffs Association, the National Association of Police 
Officers, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, the National 
Troopers Coalition, the Major County Chief Association, the Law 
Enforcement Alliance of America, the Association For Los Angeles Deputy 
Sheriffs, the District Attorney for New Orleans, the California Gang 
Investigators Association and the International Union of Police 
Associations.
  When law enforcement speaks with such a clear and unanimous voice, we 
have a duty to listen, to act now and to give their members the tools 
and resources they need to fight and win this battle on behalf of 
America's law-abiding citizens.
  I want to thank my two colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Forbes) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for their strong and 
committed leadership on this issue. They have dedicated both time and 
effort to H.R. 1279 and should be commended for their focus on 
combating this disturbing national trend.
  I urge my colleagues to support this vital public safety legislation. 
Tough, determinate sentencing policies have worked to reduce crime in 
the last 20 years, and now, we are facing a new challenge. Gang 
violence is a growing national scourge that requires a tough and 
measured response. Stiff penalties and additional resources to law 
enforcement will send a clear and unmistakable message to the violent 
criminal gang members that their conduct will no longer be tolerated.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, it is unfortunate that we are again debating how to 
reduce juvenile crime and violence. Rather than following through on 
the proven crime and violence prevention techniques that work, we are 
back to tough-talking sound byte policies that have been proven to not 
only fail to reduce crime but actually increase crime, waste taxpayers' 
money and discriminate against minorities. Seven years ago, it was the 
Violent Youth Predator Act. Now it is the ``Gang Busters'' bill, with 
the same array of poll-tested sound bytes: trying more juveniles as 
adults and mandatory minimum sentences. The bill includes

[[Page 9166]]

mandatory life or death penalties, even for unintentional acts.
  This bill is in no way like the bill we developed a few years ago on 
a bipartisan basis to address youth crime and violence following the 
dark days following the Columbine school shootings. That bill was 
cosponsored by all of the members of the Subcommittee on Crime and was 
based on combined wisdom and expertise of law enforcement, juvenile 
court judges, administrators, researchers, criminologists and juvenile 
justice advocates along with the entire political spectrum.
  All of the Hastert-Gephardt Task Force members called witnesses to 
let us know what we should do to reduce crime and violence amongst 
juveniles. Not a single one of those witnesses said we needed to add 
more Federal mandatory minimum sentences. Not one mentioned the death 
penalty. Not one said anything about trying more juveniles as adults. 
Not one. The fully bipartisan bill we developed from recommendations of 
those experts was full of collaborative efforts between Federal, State, 
and local officials aimed at addressing the problems caused by young 
people and addressing them early, focused on prevention and keeping 
them out of trouble to begin with. And when they first get in trouble, 
intervene early and provide sufficient sanctions and services to get 
them back on the straight and narrow. Further, if they do come back, 
hit them with graduated sanctions and services to the extent required 
to address the problem, including keeping them away from or getting 
them out of gang activities. At that time, as now, we can try juveniles 
as adults as early as 13-years old and sentence them with harsh 
sentences when they commit serious, violent offenses, both at the 
Federal as well as the State level.
  So make no mistake about it: The children affected by this bill will 
be those children whose roles in gang crimes are minor or fringe, 
because we are already trying youth who commit serious violent offenses 
as adults and locking them up for long periods of time. It is the 
lesser offenders, the children who get in fist fights, committing 
misdemeanors, who will be subject to the 10-year, mandatory minimum 
numbers in this bill. Those who commit murder or rape or chop off hands 
with machetes or even conspire to do that are already subject to life 
sentences. So the 10-year mandatory minimums will be the friends who 
get in fights.
  Madam Chairman, we already lock up more people than anywhere on 
earth: 714 per 100,000, way above whatever is in second place, way 
above the national average of 100 per 100,000. In fact, whereas there 
is 1 out of 63 white youth 25- to 29-years old in jail today, we lock 
up one out of every 8 African-American youth in jail today. This bill, 
with all of its discriminatory policies, will only add to that 
disparity. And for what? A long line of studies conducted by the 
Department of Justice and crime researchers have consistently told us 
that treating more juveniles as adults will increase crime and 
violence.

                              {time}  1415

  The Coalition of Juvenile Justice study, ``Childhood on Trial,'' 
coincidentally released the same day as this bill was introduced, 
covers thousands of cases over a long period of time and confirmed that 
adult treatment of more juveniles increases crime and violence and is 
discriminatory in its application. That is primarily because if the 
judge finds a person guilty in adult court, his only possibilities are 
lock the child up with adults or let them walk on probation or parole. 
If they get locked up with adults, they will obviously come out worse 
than they went in. And so the studies show that if we increase the 
number of juveniles tried as adults we will not only increase crime, 
but we will increase violent crime.
  Now, this bill not only includes provisions to try more juveniles as 
adults. It also includes more mandatory minimums. We know from all of 
the credible research, mandatory minimum sentences are the most costly 
and least effective way to address crime. As compared to intelligent 
approaches, like having the worst offenders get the most time and 
lesser offenders get less time, or drug treatment for drug-addicted 
offenders, mandatory minimum sentences have been shown to waste money 
and discriminate against minorities. That is why the Federal Judicial 
Conference has told us time and time again that mandatory minimum 
sentences violate common sense.
  We also know that the death penalty is not only flawed, but is 
disproportionately applied to minorities and the poor. It also does not 
reduce crime. Some 199 people have been freed from Death Row over the 
last 10 years because they were innocent of the crimes for which they 
received the death penalty. Now, until we fund the innocence protection 
provisions we passed last year, we should not be passing new death 
penalties.
  But unfortunately, despite all of our agreement and progress, we have 
failed in the most important aspect of our prior work, and that is to 
provide adequate funding for the initiatives that we passed. The most 
money we have ever been able to get appropriated for the juvenile 
justice bills was $55 million a year, about one-tenth of what was 
necessary. We are, in fact, cutting funding for these programs in our 
budget, and also cutting money for local law enforcement. And this bill 
provides nothing for prevention, nothing for early intervention, and 
virtually nothing in the bill goes to local law enforcement. It all 
goes to Federal prosecution and incarceration. Instead, almost $400 
million in the bill will go to the Federal prosecutors and possibly 
billions to locking up people under the long mandatory minimum 
sentences.
  Madam Chairman, we have a choice in crime policy. We can play 
politics, or we can reduce crime. And we know what to do to reduce 
crime. All the researchers have told us. In fact, a few weeks ago I met 
with some students at Monument High School in South Boston, 
Massachusetts, and I told them about this upcoming hearing we were 
having on the gang bill, and I asked them what did they think needed to 
be done to keep kids out of gangs. They said, kids join gangs for 
reputation, protection, to feel wanted, to have friends, and to get 
money. And what is needed to prevent them from joining gangs was ample 
recreation for boys as well as girls, jobs and internships for training 
and money, and assistance to allow their families to live in decent 
homes.
  Recently, I met with law enforcement officials in my district, and 
they had similar advice. Neither group said anything about the need for 
more mandatory minimums, trying more juveniles as adults, or new death 
penalties. None of them asked us to waste money on these programs.
  But we took their advice a few years ago and actually started the 
process for doing what was necessary to reduce crime: prevention and 
early intervention. But we did not finish the job of funding the 
programs. We should fund juvenile justice prevention programs, early 
intervention programs, and local law enforcement instead of passing 
this bill.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the principal 
author of this bill, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his leadership in this area and 
for bringing this bill to the floor.
  I rise today in support of this bipartisan bill, H.R. 1279, the Gang 
Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005. And in the limited 
time that I have, I just want to raise three points. The first point is 
that throughout the debate today, you will hear two different worlds 
described about gangs. One world they will describe in gangs will be 
talking about antisocial behavior and fist fights. If you think that is 
what we are concerned about with gangs, then we should not be here 
today at all talking about this bill.
  But the true world, when you talk about gangs, are that you are 
having a rise in gangs in the United States where today, as we debate 
this bill, there are between 750,000 and 850,000 gang members within 
our borders. If it

[[Page 9167]]

was a foreign army, it would be the sixth largest army in the world. 
And these are the acts in the real gang world: machete attacks, witness 
intimidation, extortion, murder of Federal agents, rape, cutting off 
arms, fingers and individuals' heads.
  So the second point is, why can we not just deal with these acts with 
current State laws? Well, this chart shows just one member of one gang 
and all of the activities that he had in traveling around the United 
States. Today, these gangs have become national and international in 
scope; and if we want to truly deal with gangs, there is only one way 
to do it: you have got to bring down the gang networks and the gang 
leaders. And this bill will do that.
  Now, our friends who are opposed to this bill say let us just deal 
with it crime by crime and individual by individual. And that works if 
it is just an individual committing a crime, because once you get that 
person and put them in jail, the crime stops. But when you are talking 
about gangs, when you deal with just one crime from a lower-tier person 
in that gang and you get that person and prosecute him, 20 different 
acts were never caught. And when you get that one person from a gang 
and it is an organized effort, 20 more spring up in their place.
  We need a system to bring together teams of Federal, State, and local 
law enforcement so that we can go after that network and bring them 
down. And I would just ask you to look at a single situation where 
local or State law enforcement has been able to reach up to these 
national and international gangs and bring down the gang network.
  The other thing that I want to say that you will see today, and we 
heard it earlier, and I was absolutely shocked when I heard it, but the 
opponents of this bill literally said on the floor earlier this morning 
that giving arts and crafts to criminal gang members who committed 
violent crimes would do more than the provisions of this bill, which is 
to lock them up and to empower law enforcement to go after them.
  And I want to just say, because you hear a lot of talk about people 
who met with a group of students here, or maybe a group of people over 
here, this is a list that the chairman read out earlier of virtually 
every major law enforcement organization in the United States who 
supports the provisions of this bill and realizes if we do not pass 
this bill and bring down the gang networks, you might as well put a big 
billboard out that says, ``Coming soon to a neighborhood near you,'' 
because that is what is going to happen with the rapid rise of these 
gangs.
  And I hope that this House will stand up today, will vote to give law 
enforcement the tools they need, and that we will go after these 
networks and bring them down.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just 
to say, first of all, that my distinguished colleague from Virginia and 
I will be working together later this week if they try to close any 
military bases. But on this bill we, unfortunately, have to disagree.
  First of all, Madam Chairman, murder, rape, kidnapping are already 
illegal in every State. Interstate gang members can be caught by RICO 
and organized crime, continuing criminal enterprise, FBI is already 
working on that. But this bill contains a provision that fist fights 
can subject young people to 10-year mandatory minimums.
  The after-school programs that have been disparaged are the kinds of 
things that will actually reduce gang involvement. You can disparage 
them by calling it arts and crafts for gang members. But if you ask the 
researchers what will actually make a difference, it is those after-
school programs to give the kids constructive things to do with their 
time.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Schiff), a former prosecutor.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chairman, in February of this year, I introduced 
bipartisan legislation with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Bono), the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005. The 
Schiff-Bono bill represents a comprehensive effort to increase gang 
prosecution and prevention efforts in order to crack down on criminal 
street gangs. The bill is virtually identical to bipartisan legislation 
that was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 108th 
Congress and has since been reintroduced by Senators Feinstein, Hatch, 
Kyl, Cornyn, and Grassley.
  Madam Chairman, the bipartisan Schiff-Bono anti-gang bill had three 
core objectives. First, it created a RICO-like statute specifically 
tailored to street gangs in order to bring these networks down in the 
same way we bring down organized crime through RICO. Second, our 
legislation increased a host of gang and violent crime penalties in 
order to deter and punish illegal street gangs. And finally the Schiff-
Bono bill included important funding for prevention and intervention 
efforts in order to attack the gang problem at its roots.
  The sponsor of the bill before us today has spent much time on 
highlighting the groups that have supported his bill. The Schiff-Bono 
and Feinstein-Hatch bills are also endorsed by these groups and a host 
of other law enforcement organizations. With all due respect to my 
colleague from Virginia on the opposite side of the aisle, the most 
significant difference between the bill I introduced prior to the bill 
that is now before us is that all of the prevention funding in the 
Senate bill and in my own bipartisan bill has been stripped out of the 
anti-gang measure, and all we are left with is the deterrence.
  Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, the committee leadership rejected the 
opportunity to address this national problem in a bipartisan fashion. 
Instead, the majority introduced the bill before us today after our 
bill was introduced that essentially increases the same penalties that 
our bill increases, but instead via mandatory minimums. The bill also 
remarkably cuts out the bipartisan provisions devoted to expanding and 
enhancing community-based and law enforcement prevention and 
intervention programs targeting criminal street gangs, gang members, 
and at-risk youth.
  These prevention and intervention provisions are largely law 
enforcement in nature. And, Madam Chairman, I want to point out these 
provisions that have been stripped out of my bill that are in the 
present form in this bill have the support of law enforcement. Law 
enforcement does not support removing those from the legislation. They 
are also part of the bipartisan bill in the Senate sponsored, as I 
mentioned, by Senators Hatch, Feinstein, Cornyn, Grassley, and Kyl. 
Members from both sides of the aisle recognize that a complete approach 
to addressing the problem of criminal street gangs must include 
prevention and intervention measures that attack the problem at its 
roots.
  Yes, we need deterrence as my bill provided. But we need prevention 
as well. And, unfortunately, I think it is quite clear that this body 
is no longer in the business of legislating, but rather of leveraging. 
The legislation before us today is merely an attempt to leverage the 
Senate. It will not come back in this form, and I intend to oppose it 
today in the hopes that we will get a better bill coming back from the 
Senate, as I am confident we will.
  Madam Chairman, when I took office in the California State Senate, I 
introduced a host of anti-crime measures as, indeed, I have done here.
  At the same time, I realized then, as I realize now, that we also 
have to take steps to intervene immediately and address juvenile crime 
at its roots and try to prevent young people from getting into trouble. 
And this, I think, is the fundamental issue before us. We can pay now, 
or we can pay later. A small amount to preventive funding that we 
invest now saves us a lot on the back end.
  Madam Chairman, in my home State of California, when we incarcerate a 
juvenile, it costs us $90,000 a year. Investing a small amount on the 
front end in time-tested and true programs that keep kids out of 
trouble makes infinite sense, both in terms of dollars saved and in 
terms of lives saved.
  And my hope, Madam Chairman, because my amendment to restore this

[[Page 9168]]

funding was not allowed by the Rules Committee, we were not allowed to 
put it to my colleagues on the House floor for a vote, I hope, Madam 
Chairman, it comes back from the Senate in a form that we can both 
support on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam 
Chairman, I deeply respect the arguments that have been advanced by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). He put forth his proposal in 
committee, and it was defeated on a rollcall vote of 3 ayes to 22 noes. 
So the Schiff proposal did not even carry a majority of the Democratic 
members in the committee, let alone the Republican members.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), who is also a sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Forbes) for doing this. And every Member of this House on 
both sides should thank the gentleman. And I thank the chairman and the 
staff of the Judiciary Committee for moving this legislation.
  March issue of Newsweek: ``They are a violent force in 33 States and 
counting. The most dangerous gang in America, MS-13.''
  They killed 10 people in Northern Virginia. And I will tell the 
gentleman from Los Angeles, they have killed a number of people out in 
your area too.
  There was a Washington Post editorial about this and a story where it 
talks about a young parent. The eldest son, age 15, was sitting on the 
steps of a nearby apartment with two friends when he was gunned down. 
The friends were wounded, but survived. The son was killed almost 
instantly. The mother remarked, we moved here to get away from the 
gangs.
  The brutality of these gangs. They took Brenda Paz, who was in the 
Witness Protection Program down to the Shenandoah Valley and slashed 
her throat to where her neck was cut all the way almost through, and 
stabbed her 16 times.

                              {time}  1430

  They prey on the poor. They prey on the poor in the inner cities. 
They prey on the poor in Culmore. I have said, the people of Culmore 
and the people of the inner city have just as much right to live in the 
upscale neighborhoods where they may not be.
  This is a good bill. And when we protect the most vulnerable in our 
society, we protect everybody. I have talked to the community in 
different areas of my district and in Culmore through this region. They 
live in fear. And I say whether you have been in this country for 50 
years and are wealthy or whether you have been here for 50 hours and 
you live in an area where you are trying to work your way out, you 
deserve the right to be protected. And the bill by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Forbes) protects the poor.
  This bill protects those who are being preyed upon. And I hope and I 
pray, on behalf of Brenda Paz who was stabbed 16 times and the families 
that live in Culmore and the families that live out in L.A. and the 
families that live in Houston, and the families that live throughout 
the State of Virginia that are suffering with this, that this bill 
passes overwhelmingly and goes on to the Senate, and they pass it so we 
can finally get relief, not for the wealthy but for those who live in 
Culmore and the inner city, who, up until this time, have been 
forgotten by this institution.
  Finally, with the Forbes bill, this will do more to help them.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  If the bill passes or does not pass, it will still be illegal to stab 
someone 16 times. What we ought to be looking at are the kinds of 
initiatives that will reduce the chances that that will happen again.
  Giving a 10-year mandatory minimum for a second offense fist fight is 
not going to reduce the chance that someone will be stabbed 16 times 
when you are not funding any of the programs that are desperately 
needed to actually reduce juvenile crime.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I want to respond very briefly to the chairman's point. I have the 
greatest respect for my chairman as well.
  Yes, it is true that the Feinstein-Hatch amendment that I offered in 
committee did not enjoy broad support on either side of the aisle. Some 
on my side of the aisle thought the sentencing enhancements in this 
bipartisan legislation were too strong and could not support it. But 
the other amendment, Madam Chairman, that I offered that would simply 
reinstate all the preventive funding, all of the proactive funding in 
the bill, that was rejected by every Republican member of the 
committee. Not a single GOP member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
would support the prevention funding in committee. And we do not have 
the ability to raise that issue on the House floor.
  It is my earnest hope, however, that in conference with the Senate, 
which I hope will insist that we not only have a back-end strategy for 
dealing with the crime problem of gangs but that we have a front-end 
strategy as well and that we will have the chance to address this again 
in conference committee, and that funding will be restored.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1279, 
the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005. I want to 
thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) for his 
hard work on this very critical issue. I also want to thank the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership in this area as well.
  Gang violence is taking over too many of our communities. What was 
once thought to be an urban problem has now moved into many suburban 
and even rural areas, leaving virtually every community and every child 
in them vulnerable. Sadly, too many children are turning their backs on 
beneficial extra-curricular activities and turning to the world of guns 
and drugs and violent activity in order to gain entry into or move up 
or just maintain status in a gang.
  In order to gain entry into these things, this legislation is 
absolutely critical. And for those who have avoided being seduced by 
gang life, they are too often held hostage in their homes for fear of 
being the next victim or the unfortunate one who may witness a gang act 
and who may later be called upon to testify, and they are often times 
in fear of their life when that happens.
  In my district, the first district of Ohio which includes the City of 
Cincinnati, the 22 homicides that have occurred as of March put the 
city on pace to exceed the record number, 75 homicides that occurred 
back in 2003. Many of our city officials and law enforcement point 
toward gang activity centered on drug trafficking as the source of this 
increase.
  We cannot allow gangs to control our communities. We must give law 
enforcement the tools to fight back. H.R. 1279 would help to accomplish 
this in two ways: It would establish new stronger gang and violent 
criminal penalties as well as strengthen existing ones to deter the 
acts of violence commonly associated with these gangs. Most 
importantly, H.R. 1279 gives our communities the resources to attack 
the gang problem from all levels.
  H.R. 1279 ensures that local State and national law enforcement work 
together to stop gangs and to make our communities finally safe as they 
ought to be. Our communities cannot fight gangs alone.
  I would strongly urge my colleagues to support this important piece 
of legislation to ensure that we have a coordinated effort in all 
levels of government. I want to again thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Forbes) for his leadership in this area.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

[[Page 9169]]


  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me time.
  I rise reluctantly because rarely do I oppose a majority bill. In 
this case, however, as I expressed in the Committee on the Judiciary, I 
think there are three problems with the bill: First, it federalizes 
State crimes. Second, it spends too much money. Third, it has mandatory 
minimums.
  I voted for mandatory minimums a number of times in my previous time 
in Congress, and then I had 6 years out, six years out to talk with 
people in the community, to talk with judges. And during that time, I 
became very uncomfortable with our approach about mandatory minimums.
  We have sentencing guidelines. The idea of those guidelines is to 
have a coherent system of sentencing, some method of figuring out how 
heinous one crime is compared to another. And then Congress comes along 
and slaps on mandatory minimums on top of that framework, doing 
violence to the framework of a sentencing guideline system. I think it 
is a mistake.
  Like I say, I voted for them in the past. I will not do it again. I 
am inclined to say, let us have a sentencing guideline system that 
works. Let us not, because of some political considerations, rise and 
go after say crack cocaine as opposed to powdered cocaine and end up 
with perverse results, which is somebody rotting in jail because they 
smoked the wrong kind of cocaine. It is an unjust result. It is 
something we should resolve in this body to avoid.
  I think we have an opportunity to improve this bill. I will be 
supporting some of the amendments the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) will be offering. It is another opportunity to try to improve 
it.
  I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE. Madam Chairman, I spent 22 years as a judge in Texas trying 
criminal cases, felonies; 22,000 felony cases came through my court. 
They dealt with everything from major theft to capital murder cases. 
And a lot of those cases were gang cases. And the people in this 
country who believe and think that gangs are not a problem are sorely 
mistaken.
  It was the action operative of the gangs in the Houston area to use 
juveniles to commit serious crimes, violent crimes, because those very 
juveniles and these gang leaders knew that juveniles would be treated 
differently, as they were. These gangs would almost laugh at the 
criminal justice system because the juveniles would not face the same 
type of punishment as adults.
  This portion of the bill that treats juveniles in some cases the same 
as adults is a good idea, because, in our country, victims continue to 
be discriminated against based on the age of offenders. Those days need 
to end, especially with gang members.
  This is an important issue.
  I, too, like the previous speakers are concerned about whether this 
is a States' rights issue or not. But gangs cross State lines. No 
longer are they just a local terrorist community. And they are 
terrorists, Madam Chairman. We, at this time, are engaged in a war 
against international terrorists. We need to be concerned about the 
street terrorists who roam our neighborhoods and commit violent crimes 
in the name of some type of gang.
  A specific powerful enemy to the United States is the MS-13 gang. We 
need to be concerned about them because they are a terrorist group. 
They are gang members. So the first duty of government is to protect 
its citizens. We do that abroad. We need to do it against those street 
terrorists that live among us.
  I support this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding me time.
  I rise to acknowledge, Madam Chairman, that gang violence poses a 
problem in America. Coming from the community that I come from in 
Houston, we have had some tough times with gang activities, and we have 
been successful in eliminating or steering young people away from that 
gang violence.
  Just recently, of course, as the ranking member on the Subcommittee 
on Immigration, we have had hearings on the MS-13 gangs. And I reached 
out to my community in Houston to determine the influx of those gangs. 
Those gangs are particularly focused in South and Central America. Many 
of the individuals are undocumented aliens that become engaged in that 
activity in California and places along the border.
  So I believe that we should have a comprehensive approach and look at 
this particular crisis, but at the same time, when I say comprehensive, 
I would suggest balanced.
  The concern I have of H.R. 1279 is that the bill and the legislative 
approach is not balanced. From the early time of my career, I recall 
that we have on the Committee on the Judiciary reached out, those of us 
who were Democrats to reach out on this question of intervention. In 
fact, the first term that I was here, we did a national tour, if you 
will, national meetings of the Subcommittee on Crime.
  My colleague who is now the ranking member joined me on that, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), where we traveled across the 
Nation to talk about the importance of intervention on gang and 
juvenile crime activities. In fact, out of that came a legislative 
initiative, the aspect that I worked on was mental health intervention, 
mental health treatment, which we found to be very effective.
  In fact, during that time, my late colleague, a very committed former 
Senator Paul Wellstone, who we tragically lost in an airplane crash, 
came to my district and visited the juvenile detention centers. We saw 
the sadness and the plight of those young men. Some, yes, had 
perpetrated heinous acts, and they were detained, or they were 
incarcerated. But we also saw the hopeless and those who did not have a 
good family situation, those who had no intervention, those who were 
not given the kind of educational structure that they needed.
  This legislation unfortunately does not meet that balance-
comprehensive test. For example, something that I find particularly 
troubling is the provision that the Attorney General can charge a 
juvenile 16-years old or older as an adult for certain violent crimes 
and prohibits judicial review of the Attorney General's decision.
  This is not to suggest that that decision might not be confirmed or 
affirmed, but here we are talking about a 16-year old, and we do not 
know the circumstances of that violent act, the previous history of 
this 16-year old, and the Attorney General does not get subjected to 
the checks and balances of that the Constitution allows us to have, 
which is judicial review of that kind of difficult decision.
  I cannot imagine, Madam Chairman, that we would have a bill that 
would not have those kind of protections.
  I had an amendment that was not made in order in particular that 
dealt specifically with the question of illegal transfer of a firearm 
to any individual the Federal Government had designated as a suspected 
or known gang member or a terrorist. It established a system whereby 
any individual inadvertently included on the gang terror watch list may 
have his or her name removed. So there is a question of mistaken 
identity. There is a question of a big sweep and adding people's names 
to the list.
  We saw that with the Pakistani registration lists after 9/11. 
Sweeping up large numbers of people from the Pakistani community, and 
as I understand, not one single person on that list was found to be a 
terrorist. And it was stopped when the Members of Congress raised their 
voices.
  The mandatory sentencing, and I am delighted of the position of the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis), I think that this Congress 
should address that separately. And I have, in fact, written bills that 
have enhanced sentencing on particular notorious or vicious acts.

[[Page 9170]]



                              {time}  1445

  I think that is appropriate; but a blanket, mandatory sentencing that 
does not deal with the fact that you are looking at juveniles, some 
U.S. citizens, some not, really begs the question.
  So if we are going to look at terrorism, we are going to look at gang 
activity, we have to realize that still children are involved; and we 
must have this comprehensive approach, because we are already known as 
the world power with the largest number of Americans and others 
incarcerated. Yes, incarcerate those who have been tried and convicted 
fairly for heinous acts and other acts; but we have a record of 
incarcerating people for long, long years way beyond the time that it 
does anything other than pack the prisons and deny families of their 
loved ones and the ability of young people to be educated and to have 
an alternative life.
  This bill leaves a lot to be desired, and I hope we can go back to 
the drawing boards and actually fix it and have a comprehensive 
approach to fighting gang violence and, of course, gang involvement.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the legislation before 
the House today, H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community 
Protection Act of 2005. As Founder and Chair of the Congressional 
Children's Caucus, I undoubtedly recognize the need for us to legislate 
to create protections from the danger and violence produced by gangs. 
However, before we haphazardly amend the law to add excessive and 
egregious mandatory minimums and other penalties that apply to groups 
of people or young groups of people, we must clearly define the acts 
that we seek to penalize. That is the essence of crafting law that is 
``narrowly tailored'' and that does not suffer from overbreadth.
  This bill is unnecessary because federal prosecutors have statutes 
such as the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) and Racketeer 
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute gang 
crime. Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence strongly suggests that this 
bill would exceed Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause.
  H.R. 1279 unreasonably an unjustifiably removes judicial review of a 
prosecutor's decision to try a youth as an adult. Current law requires 
an in-depth review of multiple considerations by a federal judge of 
whether such a transfer is in the interest of justice. This policy is 
unwise and will increase federal prosecution of youth for minor 
offenses. Presently, in both federal and state courts, juveniles who 
commit the most serious violent crimes are almost certain to be 
transferred to adult court through use of a judicial waiver. In 
effecting transfer to adult court, judicial waivers, as opposed to 
legislative or prosecutorial waivers, are the most common type of 
waiver device used. That is, the juvenile court judge decides whether 
or not to waive jurisdiction to adult court. However, Section 115 of 
H.R. 1279 takes the waiver decision out of the judge's discretion.
  As the Judicial Conference of the United States aptly suggests, 
Section 115 ``could result in the federal prosecution of juveniles for 
myriad offenses.'' Equally alarming, the legislation removes the 
current prerequisite that the transferred child have a prior conviction 
for an offense that would be a serious violent felony if committed by 
an adult. Thus, a prosecutor could unilaterally decide to transfer a 
youthful offender with no prior criminal record who commits a simple 
drug trafficking offense, with no judicial review of whether such 
transfer serves the interests of justice. Moreover, a move toward 
federal prosecution causes us great concern because as the Judicial 
Conference acknowledges, ``juvenile offenders require different and 
perhaps more extensive correctional and rehabilitative programs than 
adults and there is not a single, federal correctional facility to meet 
these needs.''
  H.R. 1279 simply takes the wrong approach. Instead of focusing on 
correctional and rehabilitative programs, it attempts to throw more 
youth in crowded adult prisons where these programs are lacking. H.R. 
1279 reflects the politics of crime where you come up with a good 
slogan such as ``the gang busters'' bill and codify it. Until H.R. 
1279, the Judiciary Committee had made great progress toward putting 
aside the politics of crime in favor of sound policy in the area of 
juvenile justice. I believe in fighting terrorism but not without a 
thoughtful approach.


                 amendments that were not made in order

  I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, 
for his austere words in support of the amendments that I offered at 
the Committee on Rules yesterday but were not made in order. These 
amendments were very substantive, as were those of my colleagues that 
were also denied debate.
  My first amendment would have struck Section 10 of the bill. As 
written in the bill, a prosecutor could bring a capital case in a 
district that had only the most tangential connection with the crime. 
This amendment clarifies that the defendant must have committed 
criminal activity related to the capital case in the jurisdiction where 
the prosecutor seeks to bring the charge. For example, if a murder 
occurred in Massachusetts with a gun stolen from Mississippi, the 
homicide case could be prosecuted in Mississippi. This allows 
prosecutors to forum shop and pick the location where they think they 
are most likely to be able to obtain a death sentence.
  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.
  My second amendment would have struck Section 115 of the bill which 
deals with the transfer of juveniles to adult courts. More 
specifically, my amendment will prevent 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 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.
  My third amendment would have closed a 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.
  Admittedly, section 114 of the underlying bill offers increased 
criminal penalties for the use of a firearm in a gang-related crime. 
However, ``after the fact'' criminal penalties are often of little use 
to victims and their loved ones. And, if we really want to curb this 
growing problem, we have to do something to prevent these individuals 
from gaining access to these dangerous weapons in the first place.
  Madam Chairman, again, I oppose this legislation and urge my 
colleagues to join me.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I have been here for a number of years; and when you 
are against a bill, you can come up with a million and one reasons why 
the bill should not pass. We just heard some of that; but if we do not 
do anything, the killings are going to continue.
  We can have a legitimate disagreement on mandatory minimum sentences, 
but I think there are some crimes that are so severe and eat away

[[Page 9171]]

so much at the roots of our society and the fabric of our society that 
those who are convicted of those crimes ought to be locked up and 
locked up for sure, because only with a certain jail term are we going 
to be able to punish those who have killed people in the most brutal 
manner and deter those who might be thinking of doing it to others in 
our society.
  I have here an April 26 story from the Associated Press, dateline, 
Houston: ``Violent gang linked to nine Houston area killings.'' I am 
not going to read the whole story on the floor, but I am going to read 
one paragraph of this story to show that those who wish to delay this 
bill because it has a mandatory minimum or because it does not do 
enough social work are wrong:
  ``Harris County Sheriff's investigators arrested five members of Mara 
Salvatrucha,'' which is MS-13, ``in connection with the shooting death 
of 18-month-old Alden Naquin, who was trapped in his car seat April 12 
when a man opened fire on a car driven by his father, Ernest Naquin.''
  I think if someone is convicted of murdering an 18-month-old in that 
circumstance they ought to be locked away for sure and for a long time. 
I am sorry people disagree with that, but I hope that this bill passes.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin for the time.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1279, and I commend the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his leadership in 
bringing this bill to the floor for a vote today.
  Madam Chairman, gang violence is on the rise across the United 
States. Areas once thought safe harbors from crime are now under the 
threat of expanding gang violence.
  My district is not home to a center city area. It is considered a 
suburban area. Bucks County is a quiet pastoral suburb of the city of 
Philadelphia, an area bordered by farms to the north, business centers 
to the south, residential areas to the west, and the Delaware River to 
the east. However, the majority of crime in my district takes place in 
a very small, concentrated area.
  But the people of Bristol, Bucks County, are taking the lead in 
cleaning up their streets. The hard work of Don Billingsley and other 
neighbor leaders have made Bristol a shining example of the Department 
of Justice's Weed and Seed initiative to take back neighborhoods from 
crime. However, Bristol is under threat from gangs migrating from 
cities just across the river in New Jersey.
  Madam Chairman, three things are needed to make sure gangs do not 
infiltrate areas like Bristol: people, money, and strong anti-crime 
laws. Well, in Bristol, we have the money and we have financial 
resources through the Weed and Seed program, but what we need are 
strong laws. H.R. 1279 is the bill that would dissuade gangs from 
taking up shop in my district.
  Gang violence is an issue that must be dealt with immediately. The 
House Committee on the Judiciary reports that over 631 gang-related 
homicides occurred in 2001, perpetrated by an estimated 750,000 active 
gang members. Gangs are directly linked to narcotics trade, human 
trafficking, identification document fraud, violent maiming, assault 
and murder, and the use of firearms to commit deadly shootings; but the 
problem does not stop there.
  Organized crime syndicates like the ultra-violent MS-13 have 
reportedly agreed to smuggle terrorists over our southern borders. This 
is now a homeland security issue.
  H.R. 1279 will apply a RICO-type approach to prosecuting modern 
street gangs. At the heart of this bill are provisions that allow 
prosecutors to go after the gangs as an enterprise. Rather than trying 
to shoehorn such cases into the existing RICO statute, the new gang 
crime statute is narrowly tailored to address the specific problem of 
gangs. Gang investigations and prosecutions take time and resources, 
and those resources will be provided by this bill.
  Organized crime, Madam Chairman, has been prosecuted in the same way 
with long and complex trials designed to take out a number of 
defendants in one single prosecution, and they were successful in 
ending their spread. Madam Chairman, let us give our police and 
prosecutors the freedom to end the spread of gang violence.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Whether this bill passes or not, murder, rape, robbery will be 
illegal. People will be prosecuted. They will get time in jail. In 
fact, as I indicated before, for 15- to 19-year-old African Americans 
in this country, one out of eight are already in jail today. This bill, 
which will try more juveniles as adults, will not only increase the 
number in jail but will also increase the crime rate.
  Mandatory minimums have been shown to be discriminatory and waste the 
taxpayers' money. The death penalty is discriminatory and does not do 
anything about crime. This bill will give 10 years mandatory minimums 
to second-offense fist fights, and that is not the kind of sentence 
that is going to do anything about these violent kinds of crimes that 
my colleagues are talking about. Ten years, mandatory minimum, second 
offense, fist fight.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, let me add to the 
distinguished gentleman's commentary.
  First of all, in the passage of the PATRIOT Act, if we are fearful of 
these gangs smuggling individuals over who do terrorist acts, the 
PATRIOT Act enhances sentencing on those engaging in terrorist acts.
  That tragic incident in Texas, for example, in Houston, the 
information suggests that the dad was involved in gang activity that 
caused the, if you will, rising of the level of violence; but the good 
news is that the sheriff's department arrested those violent criminals.
  This bill misses the point by providing a comprehensive approach to 
have intervention to be able to dissuade some of the young people of 
America away from the affinity and kinship of gangs. That is why the 
bill is wrong, and this is why it does not have a full comprehensive 
approach.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Madam Chairman, I am sure that a social worker would have been able 
to convince the person who murdered the 18-month-old not to do it. If 
my colleagues believe that, vote ``no.'' If not, vote ``yes.''
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I thank the esteemed chairman for 
yielding time to me, and Madam Chairman, I ask for this opportunity to 
say a few words in support of the bill that is before us and in 
compliments to the work done by the gentleman from Virginia who has 
announced to us that there is a number, the best estimate at 750,000 to 
850,000, gang members in the United States.
  When we think about the magnitude of that size number, 750,000 to 
850,000, 75 to 100 percent, and a lot believe the number is very close 
to 100 percent, are illegal immigrants who have established a gang 
culture in the ethnic enclave that is a necessary result of illegal 
immigration. This ethnic enclave has created and fostered some of the 
worst gains we have ever seen in this country, people that cut off 
hands and arms and heads, people that have a network across this Nation 
that from a prison in California can order an execution on the streets 
of Virginia or from a prison in Virginia, order an execution in a 
prison in L.A. or on the streets of L.A.
  That is what this culture has fostered; and that amount, that 
850,000, that is roughly out of the 10 million illegal immigrants, that 
is about 8\1/2\ percent of the illegal population ends up in a gang. 
One in 12 people that come across the border illegally and stay here 
end up in a gang. By these numbers, it is an astonishing thing; and if 
we have 1.1 million that come across the southern border, these are the 
ones

[[Page 9172]]

that stay here, calculate the numbers that turn out into gangs, the 
price to this society in hands and arms and heads.
  Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for this privilege to speak 
before this House.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection 
Act, because this bill fails to adequately deter youths from joining 
gangs and does not do enough to protect our communities.
  This bill fails to create a much-needed, comprehensive approach to 
fighting our national gang epidemic. Instead of offering funding for 
proven intervention and prevention programs that effectively keep 
youths from joining gangs in the first place, this punitive bill simply 
imposes harsh and sweeping mandatory minimum sentences.
  Locking up 16-year-olds for 10 years will not make gang crimes 
disappear. As any law enforcement officer will tell my colleagues, 
suppression is merely one of the avenues by which we can prevent gang 
violence. In fact, as many of my Democratic colleagues have repeatedly 
stressed, imposing mandatory minimums on youths often results in a 
greater likelihood of repeat, and more violent, offenses.
  Prevention and intervention programs, on the other hand, have a 
proven track record of keeping kids out of gangs; but at the Committee 
on the Judiciary markup of this bill and in the Committee on Rules last 
night, amendments to include intervention and prevention programs in 
this bill were defeated along party-line votes.
  I joined my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson), in submitting an amendment to expand the 
Project Safe Neighborhoods program, to authorize the Attorney General 
to make the FBI increase Safe Streets Initiative efforts, to 
reauthorize the Gang Resistance Education and Training Projects program 
and, more importantly, to double-funding for high-intensity interstate 
gang activity areas and require half of those funds to go to community-
based anti-gang programs.
  I know from personal knowledge that our amendment would have reduced 
gang activity nationwide because I have seen community-based programs 
work in my very own district.
  The Gang Resistance in Paramount, or GRIP, program has been educating 
kids about the dangers of gang participation for years. I spent some 
time inside a fourth grade class inside of Paramount last year to see 
the GRIP program in action. I saw firsthand how the program caught the 
attention of the students, and it was amazing how the program engaged 
the students in learning and how quickly they saw the dangers in gangs.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1279 and instead work towards a 
comprehensive approach.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I rise this afternoon to support H.R. 
1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act.
  I was pleased to work with the Committee on the Judiciary, and 
especially the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), my good friend, to 
support the legislation on the floor today.
  According to the Justice Department, there are currently over 25,000 
gangs and over 750,000 gang members who are active across the United 
States. Gang activity has been directly linked to the proliferation of 
illegal drugs, human trafficking, and many other violent crimes.
  The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act will authorize funds 
for joint Federal, State, and local gang investigation prosecution; 
create a statute to prosecute criminal gang enterprises similar to the 
existing RICO statute used to prosecute Federal racketeering; create 
mandatory minimum sentencing for gang and violent crimes; and fund gang 
investigation technology to allow law enforcement to act more 
efficiently.
  Madam Chairman, many headlines of late have reflected on growing gang 
problems in heavily populated areas. Unfortunately, gang violence is 
also on the rise in rural areas, including my congressional district. 
The disturbing news that it is spreading through the Shenandoah Valley 
of Virginia is indeed disturbing. In fact, the FBI has recognized the 
existence of at least six separate gangs in the valley, some of which 
are responsible for at least two gang-related murders in the past 2 
years.
  Madam Chairman, acknowledging the reality that gangs are no longer 
limited solely to urban areas, I am pleased to join my colleagues to 
support this gangbusters legislation. This legislation will allow us to 
meet the increase in gang activity with resources sufficient to combat 
this scourge in our communities, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this important legislation.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of anybody who 
would want to see gangs deterred more. I cannot think of anybody who 
would want to see crime deterred more. I cannot think of many people 
who have had more experience living in inner-city communities, where 
there is a tremendous amount of poverty, deprivation and pestilence.
  I want to see people who commit robbery, murder, rape, assaults, 
participate in mob action, all of them dealt with accordingly. And 
although I do not believe in capital punishment, I do believe that they 
have to be punished. I do not believe that mandatory minimums, that 
trying more children, more teenagers as adults, or changing venues and 
deciding what discretionary action individuals would be tried under is 
going to solve the problem. I think that we need to make sure that 
fairness is a part of justice.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill frightens me. It scares me. I would hope that 
we would take it back, deal with it appropriately and bring a bill that 
we can agree on that punishes those who deserve to be punished but to 
demonstrate that we understand sensitivity and not put children in jail 
as adults.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. My colleagues, this is a measure that we should be able 
to identify the problem, study the data, and work together to craft a 
commonsense response to youth violence. But the measure before us has 
fatal flaws which authorizes trying more juveniles as adults and 
provides for more mandatory minimums and more death penalties. None of 
these things will correct and reduce the youth violence problem, but 
they will seriously harm our system of juvenile justice.
  Now, the one thing that we should know before we go to a vote here is 
the organizations that have joined myself and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking subcommittee member, and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has worked tirelessly on this 
issue across the years with the Congressional Black Caucus. For 
instance, the Judicial Conference of the United States opposes this 
measure. The Sentencing Commission opposes this measure; the Alliance 
for Children and Families, the Children's Defense Fund, the Youth Law 
Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Correctional 
Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses, the National Council of La Raza, the 
Presbyterian Church, and the Volunteers of America.
  And let me tell my colleagues why these groups oppose this 
legislation. Because, first, they know that trying children as adults 
and transferring them to adult jails not only does not work, but it 
makes the situation more

[[Page 9173]]

likely that they will commit crimes upon release. There are studies 
that back this up; that they will commit violent crimes upon release, 
and they will commit crimes sooner upon release. The Miami Herald study 
concluded that, since adult prisons are, in effect, often crime 
schools, sending a juvenile there increases by 35 percent the odds that 
they will commit another offense within a year of release.
  Secondly, we know that mandatory minimums distort the sentencing 
process because the Judicial Conference and the Sentencing Commission 
have found that mandatory minimums ``destroy honesty in sentencing by 
encouraging charge and fact plea bargains.'' Again, the legislation 
before us ignores these facts and creates numerous new mandatory 
minimums that will lead to far greater disparities and further 
discrimination.
  At a time when we have more than 2.1 million Americans in prisons or 
jails, more than any Nation on the planet, and 10 percent of these 
individuals are already serving life sentences, it is difficult for 
reasonable legislators to see how more jail time for more youth can 
accomplish anything constructive.
  Finally, we know now that the death penalty system in this country is 
incredibly prone to error. So I urge that the Members of this House 
return this measure to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this bill seem to zero in on two 
things. First of all, they are opposed to mandatory minimum sentences. 
People may have a philosophical disagreement on mandatory minimum 
sentences, but it seems to me that given the violence of gang activity, 
the number of murders, the number of maimings, that a mandatory minimum 
sentence is absolutely necessary to get these people off the streets if 
the twelve persons on the jury believe that that defendant has 
committed those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
  The other thing we hear from the opponents is, they dust off the same 
old tired arguments that we need more and more spending on prevention 
programs, but no one has proven they work. Let us take a look at the 
facts. Violent crime rates over the last 30 years have dropped 
dramatically, by almost 50 percent. At the same time, tough new 
determinant sentencing schemes have been enacted by Congress, including 
mandatory minimums, truth-in-sentencing programs and other sentencing 
schemes where criminals go to jail for a specified period of time after 
their conviction. Prison populations have grown, and crimes have gone 
down. The logic is clear. We have to incarcerate and incapacitate the 
violent criminals in our society. We have done so and must continue to 
do so. This bill does that.
  When we talk about spending more on prevention, consider these facts: 
Conservative estimates show that the Department of Justice has already 
spent over $2 billion, that is with a ``B,'' of the taxpayers' dollars 
between fiscal years 2001 through 2004 on juvenile and gang prevention 
programs. From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2005, Congress has 
appropriated $3.3 billion of the taxpayers' dollars for juvenile 
justice programs within the Department of Justice.
  Have they worked? This is yet to be proven, because juvenile gang 
violence is on the rise. The percentage of homicides committed by gangs 
has risen, and the number of juveniles committing gang murders has also 
risen.
  So let me say that, if $3.3 billion over the last 6 years in 
intervention and prevention programs has not turned around this type of 
crime when other crime has gone down, maybe the time to throw the book 
at those who are engaged in juvenile gang violence is at hand. That is 
why this bill ought to pass. I urge the membership to vote aye.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this H.R. 1279, the Gang 
Deterrence and Community Prosecution Act of 2005. I strongly believe in 
cooperation between Federal and State law enforcement to deter gang 
activities. However, this bill takes the wrong approach by imposing 
mandatory sentences, trying juveniles as adults and expanding the death 
sentence to new offenses.
  I, myself, can appreciate the destruction that gang violence can 
impose on a community. In Chicago alone, there are estimated to be 
70,000 to 100,000 gang members--compared with about 13,000 Chicago 
police officers. Several ``super gangs'' dominate: the Gangster 
Disciples, the Black Disciples, the Vice Lords, the Black P Stones, the 
Mickey Cobras, the Latin Kings, the Spanish Cobras, the Maniac Latin 
Disciples, and the Satan Disciples. Each of these gangs controlled 
large amounts of territory and have wreaked havoc on the Chicago 
community. Nevertheless, prevention and intervention is the key in 
deterring juvenile crime and gang activities, not discriminatory 
mandatory sentencing or unfettered prosecutorial discretion.
  Study after study have shown that trying juveniles as adults does not 
reduce crime but increases crime, including violent crime. In addition, 
a better approach, as opposed to this ill-advised approach, would be to 
focus our energy on more programs for at risk youth such as Head Start, 
Job Corps and family focused intervention programs. Again, I rise 
against H.R. 1279, and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
do the same.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I stand today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 1279, the so-called gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act. 
Despite its deceptive title, its primary purpose is to punish more 
young people as adults. This bill would expand the use of the death 
penalty, treat juveniles as adults and impose mandatory minimum 
sentences. The research conclusively shows that prosecuting young 
people as adults does not reduce youth crime. If Congress is serious 
about reducing youth violence, it should fund evidence-based programs 
that have proven effective.
  Federal prosecutors are already armed with the Continuing Criminal 
Enterprise, CCE, and Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organization Act, 
RICO, statutes to combat gang crimes. This bill would unnecessarily 
federalize a host of crimes currently and competently handled by the 
states; penalize even non-violent crimes and misdemeanors as crimes of 
violence, including garden variety State offenses like resisting 
arrest; expand without reason the definition of criminal street gang; 
unwisely leave to the sole discretion of the government the 
unreviewable decision to try juveniles as adults; impose unduly harsh 
and discriminatory mandatory minimum sentences; and expand the use of 
the federal death penalty to new offenses.
  I agree that gang violence and youth crimes are serious concerns 
today. Unfortunately, this bill does nothing in the way of jobs or 
education for at-risk youth. Instead, this bill would lock up young 
people in adult prisons and take away judges' discretion to review on a 
case-by-case basis crimes committed by youth. Research shows that young 
people who are prosecuted as adults are more likely to commit a greater 
number of crimes upon release than youth who go through the juvenile 
justice system. Locking young people up in adult prisons will actually 
compromise public safety.
  We know what works to prevent violent crime. Research demonstrates 
the effectiveness of focused family interventions such as family 
therapy and multidimensional treatment foster care. Certain school-
based interventions such as the Bullying Prevention Program and the 
Project Towards No Drug Abuse, and careful monitoring programs such as 
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America have also proven effective. Instead 
of funding these programs whose empirical effectiveness can be 
demonstrated, supporters of this bill insist upon approaches that lack 
any evidence of actually deterring and reducing violent youth crime.
  Furthermore, state juvenile justice systems are more appropriate and 
effective means for addressing youth offenses. Studies have shown that 
comprehensive, locally tailored strategies are the most effective in 
preventing gang and youth violence. Existing state legislation is more 
than adequate to comprehensively address youth violence--increased 
federalization of juvenile crime is not the answer.
  The Judicial Conference of the United States, child advocacy groups, 
criminal justice groups, industry and business-oriented groups, 
religious, human rights and civil rights organizations all oppose this 
bill. It is the responsibility of Congress to the young people of this 
nation and to all citizens to ensure public safety. I urge my 
colleagues to reject H.R. 1279 because it would only exacerbate youth 
violence in the United States.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection 
Act, (H.R. 1279), is the latest example of Congress disregarding its 
constitutional limitations in the

[[Page 9174]]

name of ``getting tough on crime.'' Gang crime is certainly a serious 
issue in many parts of the country. However, unless criminal gangs are 
engaging in counterfeiting, treason, or piracy, the federal government 
has no jurisdiction over the criminal activities of gangs. In fact, by 
creating new federal crimes related to gang activities, but unrelated 
to one of the federal crimes enumerated in the Constitution, the new 
federal crimes and enhanced penalties in this bill usurp state and 
local authority.
  H.R. 1279 broadly defines ``criminal street gangs'' and ``gang 
activity.'' This is a major expansion of Federal criminal jurisdiction. 
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed 
Meese, two men who no one has ever accused of being ``soft on crime,'' 
have both warned that, although creating more Federal crimes may make 
politicians feel good, it is neither constitutionally sound nor 
prudent. Rehnquist has stated that, ``[t]he trend to federalize crimes 
that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to 
change entirely the nature of our federal system.'' Meese stated that 
Congress's tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of 
offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous 
implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the 
principle that states are something more than mere administrative 
districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
  Those who want the American criminal justice system to actually 
deliver justice should oppose H.R. I279 because it imposes ``mandatory 
minimum'' sentences for certain gang-related crimes. Mandatory minimum 
sentences impose a ``one-size-fits-all'' formula in place of the 
discretion of a judge, or jury, to weigh all the circumstances 
surrounding an individual's crime and decide on an appropriate 
punishment. Taking away judicial discretion over sentencing may 
represent a legislative usurpation of areas properly left to the 
judiciary. I have long been critical of judicial usurpation of 
legislative functions, and have introduced legislation using Congress's 
constitutional powers to rein in the judiciary. However, I recognize 
that Congress must make sure it does not overstep its constitutional 
authority by imposing legislative solutions on matters best resolved by 
the judicial branch.
  Mandatory minimums almost guarantee unjust sentences. Reverend 
Nicholas DiMarzio, Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee of the 
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Reverend Kerry 
Snyder, President of Catholic Charities USA, summed it up well in a 
letter to Congress opposing this bill: ``. . . rigid sentencing 
formulations could prevent judges from properly assessing an 
individual's culpability during the crime of other factors that have 
bearing on recidivism, thus sometimes resulting in harsh and 
inappropriate sentences.''
  I am also concerned that removing authority over the prevention and 
punishment of gang crimes from state and local jurisdictions will 
prevent states and localities from coming up with innovative ways to 
prevent gang crimes. Gangs flourish for a multitude of reasons, and no 
federal ``one-size-fits-all'' program can address all the causes of 
gang crimes. States and localities should be left free to create the 
gang prevention and punishment programs that best meet their unique 
needs.
  Supporters of this bill make a good point that federal money is being 
wasted on ineffective ``prevention'' programs like the infamous 
``midnight basketball'' program. However, H.R. 1279 in no way reduces 
funding for ineffective prevention programs. Instead, it spends more 
taxpayer money on unconstitutional crime programs. The sponsors of this 
bill could have attempted to stop wasting taxpayer funds on programs 
such as midnight basketball by defunding such prevention programs and 
using the funds to pay for the new programs created by H.R. 1279.
  Finally, I must oppose this bill because it expands the Federal death 
penalty. While I recognize that nothing in the Constitution forbids 
Federal, State, or local governments from imposing a death penalty, I 
have come to the conclusion that a consistent pro-life position 
requires opposition to any legislation imposing a Federal death penalty 
for unconstitutional Federal crimes. Mr. Speaker, I do not advocate 
Federal action to stop individual States from imposing a death penalty, 
I simply oppose compounding the damage done by creating new Federal 
crimes by making those crimes subject to a Federal death penalty.
  H.R. 1279 exceeds Congress's constitutional authority by creating new 
Federal crimes, thus further burdening the already overwhelmed Federal 
judiciary system and taking another step toward upending our 
constitutional system by turning the States into administrative 
districts of the Federal Government. This bill also creates unwise 
mandatory minimum sentences, usurping the sentencing decisions of 
judges and juries. Finally, H.R. 1279 raises serious moral issues by 
expanding the use of the Federal death penalty. Therefore, I must 
oppose H.R. 1279 and urge my colleagues to do same.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 
2005.
  I have spoken with sheriffs and police chiefs back in my district and 
they tell me: we need to be ready; we need to learn how to confront 
these gangs. This legislation will do just that, it will provide local, 
State, and Federal law enforcement and legal authorities with 
personnel, equipment, and training needed to combat violent criminal 
gangs.
  In Virginia, no urban area has gone unscarred by criminal gangs. 
Across Virginia, officials estimate that as many as 80 gangs totaling 
30,000 members or more roam our city streets.
  The Commonwealth's law enforcement and prosecutors will now have 
greater resources to combat violent criminal gang activity. We must act 
now, if we are to protect Virginia's families and communities.
  I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1279, which will 
increase the prosecution of gangs and help prevent gang-related crimes.
  Gang violence is a serious problem, and we need to address it with 
determination and creativity.
  A recent rash of gang-related violence has left four injured and one 
person dead in the city of Norwalk this year. My own home town of 
Bridgeport has faced a tough gang problem for years. It is absolutely 
essential we have strong legislation on the books to send gang members 
who commit violent acts into jail and off our streets.
  I want to stress, however, the importance of prevention programs to 
deter our vulnerable youth from turning to gangs to support. The 
mentoring program in the Norwalk Public School system, which will 
benefit from the recent Department of Education Federal grant we 
secured, plays a strong role in keeping kids off the streets. The 
bottom line is, while we need to make sure juvenile offenders 
understand the consequences of their actions and are punished for them, 
we need to make every effort to help youth who are at risk of becoming 
juvenile offenders.
  Mentoring programs designed to reduce children's juvenile delinquency 
and involvement in gangs and provide positive relationships to help 
guide them during their school years are an invaluable way to break the 
cycle of gang membership before it begins. Incarceration will put 
criminals away but it won't save more kids from falling through the 
cracks and turning to a life of crime.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I do not support this bill in 
its current form, and must vote against it.
  Gang violence is real and serious. And there are already a wide range 
of Federal laws on the books that can be and are used to combat it. For 
example, Federal prosecutors are already armed with the Continuing 
Criminal enterprise, CCE, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 
Organizations Act, RICO, statutes.
  So, is there an urgent need to pass new legislation that 
``federalizes'' criminal gang activity and pushes the Federal 
Government further into law enforcement that is now being handled by 
the states? I doubt it, and think a better approach would be to support 
state and local law enforcement directly.
  I am also not convinced that it makes sense to further expand the 
definition of criminal street gang and to reclassify some misdemeanors 
as crimes of violence, as this bill would do, and I am particularly 
concerned about the provisions to establish new mandatory minimum 
sentences.
  Violent and dangerous people, whether members of gangs or not, need 
to be securely confined. But our experience with mandatory minimum 
sentences shows they are ineffective in preventing crime, they distort 
the sentencing process, and result mainly in a considerable waste of 
taxpayers' money.
  I think instead of adding new Federal laws, Congress would achieve 
better results by providing greater assistance to state and local law 
enforcement agencies and to prevention programs which can reduce the 
impetus for young people to join gangs.
  The bill does include some provisions that I support, including those 
that will make it easier for law enforcement agencies to have access to 
information about people who are in the country illegally and are 
subject to deportation. However, I think that they are outweighed by 
the bill's defects and so I will vote against this measure.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that the United 
States should be

[[Page 9175]]

doing more to reduce violent crimes, whether they are committed by 
gangs or individuals. I voted against the ``Gang Deterrence and 
Community Protection Act of 2005'' because it fails to address this 
problem and impairs our judicial system. H.R. 1279 increases penalties 
for non-violent crimes, while imposing mandatory minimum sentences and 
expanding the death penalty. These provisions do nothing to detour gang 
violence and limit judge's ability to impose sentences that fit the 
offense. Furthermore, the bill does not include early intervention 
programs or other preventative programs that could be successful in 
reducing gang violence. I am hopeful that Congress will work to pass 
legislation that addresses the core issues behind this serious problem.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1279, the gang 
Deterrence and Community Protection Act. I am disappointed that the 
majority has chosen to address a very serious problem with unrealistic 
and potentially damaging solutions.
  Gang activity is a very real and dangerous problem. In my own 
district, gangs pose a severe threat to the youth in many communities. 
Just yesterday, I spoke at length with a constituent whose son has 
suffered permanent and irreversible brain injury from a beating at the 
hands of a local gang.
  There is much that Congress can and should do to help keep our youth 
out of gangs and strengthen our law enforcement efforts against gangs. 
Gangs are tough and gang members often do not respond to mild measures. 
We should increase the resources available to gang prevention, 
intervention, and suppression programs, such as the Juvenile 
Delinquency Protection Block Grant (JJDPBG). These programs have been 
very effective in helping youth make the correct decisions with regard 
to gang activity.
  We should increase the resources available to our public schools. All 
too often, youth join gangs because they feel that it is the only 
option available to them. By helping our teachers, administrators, and 
school systems, we can show them other, more promising, options.
  We should oppose the reduction or elimination of programs that put 
police officers on our streets. Since 1994, the Community Oriented 
Policing Services (COPS) program has funded 4,806 additional police 
officers and sheriffs deputies to prevent crime in New Jersey. It has 
allowed New Jersey to spend $45 million on crime-fighting technologies. 
We should be having a serious discussion about why this successful 
program warrants an 80 percent cut in the Republican budget for Fiscal 
Year 2006.
  Unfortunately, this legislation proposes ineffective and damaging 
solutions to this serious problem. Mandatory minimum sentencing 
guidelines discount mitigating factors in crimes and are discriminatory 
towards people of color. It is time to give up the Congressional 
fascination with mandatory sentencing. It does not work. It may make 
the legislator feel good, but it hinders the judicial process, and most 
important it does not stop crime or deter criminals.
  Also, diverting youth to the adult criminal justice system does 
nothing to deter crimes. In fact, youth tried and sentenced as adults 
are much more likely to commit violent crime after being released. 
Further, I am concerned that H.R. 1279 provides no exception for youth 
who have mental health problems and may not be competent to stand trial 
as adults.
  I am happy that Congress is addressing this issue, which has affected 
so many communities across New Jersey and the country. Serious crimes 
like murder, assault, and rape at the hands of gangs and criminal 
enterprises clearly deserve our attention. However, this bill proposes 
solutions that do nothing to deter youth from gang membership or 
strengthen the law enforcement presence in our communities.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1279.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1279, ``The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 
2005.''
  Northern Virginia is home to large Central American and Asian 
populations. I believe these groups bring a diversity and work ethic 
that enhances and benefits our region. Our diversity is one of our 
strengths.
  Unfortunately, we have become increasingly aware of the gang element 
that sometimes attends these communities, and we are now fighting the 
spread of violent gang activity here in our neighborhoods.
  Accounts of machete attacks and other violent murders have awoken my 
constituents to the dangers gangs present to all communities in 
Northern Virginia. In fact, law enforcement officials say there is a 
gang presence in everv high school in Fairfax County. In the past, I 
have worked with my colleagues Frank Wolf and Jim Moran to direct 
federal resources for anti-gang activity to Northern Virginia. I have 
also traveled on numerous occasions to those Central American countries 
that serve as the breeding ground for MS-13 and other such gangs.
  The legislation we are voting on today addresses one aspect of gang 
control. As our neighbors in El Salvador have learned, you can make all 
the arrests you want, but if you don't have the ability to effectively 
prosecute you actually exacerbate the problem. This legislation will 
help ensure that we do not have the same issue here in the United 
States.
  The tough penalties set out by the bill will send a clear message 
that we intend to stop the menace of gang violence, and that those who 
challenge us will be dealt with harshly. We are also bolstering our 
commitment to law enforcement by providing them the resources they need 
to penetrate gangs and successfully put members behind bars.
  Of course, if we are to ultimately be successful and effectively stem 
the expansion of gang activity, we need to take a comprehensive look at 
all strategies including law enforcement, international engagement, 
educational programs, social services and prevention. Law enforcement 
is one key component; however, without adequate attention to these 
other aspects, we will have a great deal of difficulty eradicating this 
epidemic.'
  To that end, I plan to continue to work with my colleagues to provide 
adequate support for education and prevention efforts, outreach, and 
other proactive programs to deal with the problem at the source. In 
addition, as the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy, I intend to thoroughly 
investigate the tie between narcotrafficking and gang activity. I plan 
to travel again to both Colombia and EI Salvador this month as part of 
this effort.
  I also intend to meet with leaders of those countries to determine 
how the United States can better assist their efforts to stem the flow 
of gang members to the United States.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to address 
this serious challenge, and I again want to thank my friend Randy 
Forbes for taking the lead on this critical aspect of our fight.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1279. 
This punitive bill does nothing to help fight and deter the root of the 
gang problem plaguing our neighborhoods. I represent communities that 
are afflicted with gang violence, and I know first hand the suffering 
that families have to go through as a result. I support a combined 
approach to the gang problem that encourages prevention, intervention 
and suppression.
  This bill is filled with criminal sanctions that would only help 
exacerbate the gang problem. The legislation would federalize a host of 
crimes currently and competently handled by the states. It would also 
penalize even non-violent drug dealing and some misdemeanors as crimes 
of violence. Without reason, the legislation expands the definition of 
criminal street gang. The bill imposes unduly harsh and discriminatory 
mandatory minimum sentences and expands the use of the federal death 
penalty to new offenses.
  I strongly oppose the provision that allows the government sole 
discretion in deciding whether or not to try juveniles as adults. It is 
a proven fact that prosecuting children as adults increases, not 
decreases, crime. Study after study has shown that youth transferred to 
the adult criminal justice system are more likely to re-offend and to 
commit more serious crimes upon release than youth who remained in the 
juvenile system. At a time when the Bush administration has proposed 
huge cuts to programs that serve our youth, it is irresponsible to pass 
legislation that would only destabilize our communities and aggravate 
crime.
  This bill is a simplistic approach to a complex problem that has its 
roots in the lack of a quality education and after school programs and 
negative influences from adults and broken families, among other 
problems. Our society must provide young people with meaningful 
alternatives that will draw them away from the gang lifestyle. We 
should not be soft on crime; my community has suffered for many years 
and we know how gang violence has scarred our families. That is why we 
must punish those who need to be punished while also remembering to 
give youth the opportunity to succeed in life. I support effective 
measures to combat gang-related crime and this bill completely fails to 
do that.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). All time for general debate has 
expired.

[[Page 9176]]

  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1279

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gang Deterrence and 
     Community Protection Act of 2005''.

   TITLE I--CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS AND ENHANCED PENALTIES TO DETER AND 
  PUNISH ILLEGAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY AND RELATED CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS

     SEC. 101. REVISION AND EXTENSION OF PENALTIES RELATED TO 
                   CRIMINAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 26 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

                  ``CHAPTER 26--CRIMINAL STREET GANGS

``Sec.
``521. Criminal street gang prosecutions.

     ``Sec. 521. Criminal street gang prosecutions

       ``(a) Street Gang Crime.--Whoever commits, or conspires, 
     threatens or attempts to commit, a gang crime for the purpose 
     of furthering the activities of a criminal street gang, or 
     gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in 
     such a gang, shall, in addition to being subject to a fine 
     under this title--
       ``(1) if the gang crime results in the death of any person, 
     be sentenced to death or life in prison;
       ``(2) if the gang crime is kidnapping, aggravated sexual 
     abuse, or maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of 
     years not less than 30;
       ``(3) if the gang crime is assault resulting in serious 
     bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for 
     life or any term of years not less than 20; and
       ``(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any 
     term of years not less than 10.
       ``(b) Forfeiture.--
       ``(1) In general.--The court, in imposing sentence on any 
     person convicted of a violation of this section, shall order, 
     in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of 
     any provision of State law, that such person shall forfeit to 
     the United States such person's interest in--
       ``(A) any property used, or intended to be used, in any 
     manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission 
     of, the violation; and
       ``(B) any property constituting, or derived from, any 
     proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a 
     result of the violation.
       ``(2) Application of controlled substances act.--
     Subsections (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), 
     (m), (n), (o), and (p) of section 413 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853) shall apply to a forfeiture 
     under this section as though it were a forfeiture under that 
     section.
       ``(c) Definitions.--The following definitions apply in this 
     section:
       ``(1) Criminal street gang.--The term `criminal street 
     gang' means a formal or informal group or association of 3 or 
     more individuals, who commit 2 or more gang crimes (one of 
     which is a crime of violence other than an offense punishable 
     under subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of section 401(b)(1) of 
     the Controlled Substances Act), in 2 or more separate 
     criminal episodes, in relation to the group or association, 
     if any of the activities of the criminal street gang affects 
     interstate or foreign commerce.
       ``(2) Gang crime.--The term `gang crime' means conduct 
     constituting any Federal or State crime, punishable by 
     imprisonment for more than one year, in any of the following 
     categories:
       ``(A) A crime of violence.
       ``(B) A crime involving obstruction of justice, tampering 
     with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant, 
     or burglary.
       ``(C) A crime involving the manufacturing, importing, 
     distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or 
     otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed 
     chemical (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
       ``(D) Any conduct punishable under section 844 (relating to 
     explosive materials), subsection (a)(1), (d), (g)(1) (where 
     the underlying conviction is a violent felony (as defined in 
     section 924(e)(2)(B) of this title) or is a serious drug 
     offense (as defined in section 924(e)(2)(A))), (g)(2), 
     (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), (g)(9), (i), (j), (k), (n), 
     (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating to 
     unlawful acts), or subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), 
     (m), or (n) of section 924 (relating to penalties), section 
     930 (relating to possession of firearms and dangerous weapons 
     in Federal facilities), section 931 (relating to purchase, 
     ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons), 
     sections 1028 and 1029 (relating to fraud and related 
     activity in connection with identification documents or 
     access devices), section 1952 (relating to interstate and 
     foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering 
     enterprises), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of 
     monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in 
     monetary transactions in property derived from specified 
     unlawful activity), or sections 2312 through 2315 (relating 
     to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles or 
     stolen property).
       ``(E) Any conduct punishable under section 274 (relating to 
     bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 
     (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the 
     United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of 
     alien for immoral purpose) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act.
       ``(3) Aggravated sexual abuse.--The term `aggravated sexual 
     abuse' means an offense that, if committed in the special 
     maritime and territorial jurisdiction would be an offense 
     under section 2241(a).
       ``(4) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 
     any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Amendment Relating to Priority of Forfeiture Over 
     Orders for Restitution.--Section 3663(c)(4) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``chapter 46 or 
     chapter 96 of this title'' and inserting ``section 521, under 
     chapter 46 or 96,''.
       (c) Money Laundering.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, section 521 
     (relating to criminal street gang prosecutions)'' before ``, 
     section 541''.

     SEC. 102. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN 
                   TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION IN AID OF 
                   RACKETEERING.

       (a) Substantive Changes to Offense.--Section 1952(a) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) so that the heading for the section reads as follows:

     ``Sec. 1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to 
       racketeering'';

       (2) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
       (3) by striking ``travels'' and all that follows through 
     ``intent to'' and inserting ``, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce'';
       (4) by striking ``(1) distribute'' and inserting ``(A) 
     distributes'';
       (5) by striking ``(2) commit'' and inserting ``(B) 
     commits'';
       (6) by striking ``(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, 
     carry on, or facilitate'' and inserting ``(C) otherwise 
     promotes, manages, establishes, carries on, or facilitates''; 
     and
       (7) by striking ``and thereafter'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the subsection and inserting the 
     following:

     ``or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as 
     provided in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) The punishment for an offense under this subsection 
     is--
       ``(A) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A) or (C) 
     of paragraph (1), a fine under this title and imprisonment 
     for not less than 5 nor more than 20 years; and
       ``(B) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (B) of 
     paragraph (1), a fine under this title and imprisonment for 
     not less than 10 nor more than 30 years, but if death results 
     the offender shall be sentenced to death, or to imprisonment 
     for any term of years or for life.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 1952 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 95 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to racketeering.''.

     SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIME.

       (a) Carjacking.--Section 2119 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``, with the intent to cause death or 
     serious bodily harm'' in the matter preceding paragraph (1);
       (2) by inserting ``or conspires'' after ``attempts'' in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1);
       (3) by striking ``15'' and inserting ``20'' in paragraph 
     (1); and
       (4) by striking ``or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or 
     both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned not less than 10 years 
     nor more than 30 years'' in paragraph (2).
       (b) Clarification of Illegal Gun Transfers to Commit Drug 
     Trafficking Crime or Crimes of Violence.--Section 924(h) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(h) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign 
     commerce, knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing or intending 
     that the firearm will be used to commit, or possessed in 
     furtherance of, a crime of violence or drug trafficking 
     crime, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not 
     less than 5 years nor more than 20 years.''.
       (c) Amendment of Special Sentencing Provision Relating to 
     Limitations on Criminal Association.--Section 3582(d) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``section 521 (criminal street gang 
     prosecutions), in'' after ``felony set forth in'';
       (2) by striking ``specified person, other than his 
     attorney, upon'' and inserting ``specified person upon''; and
       (3) by inserting ``a criminal street gang or'' before ``an 
     illegal enterprise''.
       (d) Conspiracy Penalty.--Section 371 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``five'' and inserting 
     ``20''.

     SEC. 104. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR USE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE 
                   FACILITIES IN THE COMMISSION OF MURDER-FOR-HIRE 
                   AND OTHER FELONY CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1958 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

[[Page 9177]]



     ``Sec. 1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the 
       commission of murder-for-hire and other felony crimes of 
       violence'';

       (2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or other crime of 
     violence, punishable by imprisonment for more than one 
     year,'' after ``intent that a murder''; and
       (3) in subsection (a), by striking ``shall be fined'' the 
     first place it appears and all that follows through the end 
     of such subsection and inserting the following:

     ``shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under this 
     title
       ``(1) if the crime of violence or conspiracy results in the 
     death of any person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
       ``(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated 
     sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, or a 
     conspiracy to commit such a crime of violence, be imprisoned 
     for life or any term of years not less than 30;
       ``(3) if the crime of violence is an assault, or a 
     conspiracy to assault, that results in serious bodily injury 
     (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for life or any 
     term of years not less than 20; and
       ``(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any 
     term of years not less than 10.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 1958 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 95 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
              murder-for-hire and other felony crimes of violence.''.

     SEC. 105. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR VIOLENT CRIMES IN AID OF 
                   RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.

       (a) Offense.--Section 1959(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Whoever commits, or conspires, threatens, or attempts 
     to commit, a crime of violence for the purpose of furthering 
     the activities of an enterprise engaged in racketeering 
     activity, or for the purpose of gaining entrance to or 
     maintaining or increasing position in, such an enterprise, 
     shall, unless the death penalty is otherwise imposed, in 
     addition and consecutive to the punishment provided for any 
     other violation of this chapter and in addition to being 
     subject to a fine under this title--
       ``(1) if the crime of violence results in the death of any 
     person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
       ``(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated 
     sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, be 
     imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 30;
       ``(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting in 
     serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be 
     imprisoned for life or for any term of years not less than 
     20; and
       ``(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any 
     term of years not less than 10.''.
       (b) Venue.--Section 1959 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following: --
       ``(c) A prosecution for a violation of this section may be 
     brought in--
       ``(1) the judicial district in which the crime of violence 
     occurred; or
       ``(2) any judicial district in which racketeering activity 
     of the enterprise occurred.''.

     SEC. 106. MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED DURING 
                   AND IN RELATION TO A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.

       (a) In General.--Part D of the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:


``Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation to a 
                         drug trafficking crime

       ``Sec. 424. (a) In General.--Whoever commits, or conspires, 
     or attempts to commit, a crime of violence during and in 
     relation to a drug trafficking crime, shall, unless the death 
     penalty is otherwise imposed, in addition and consecutive to 
     the punishment provided for the drug trafficking crime and in 
     addition to being subject to a fine under this title--
       ``(1) if the crime of violence results in the death of any 
     person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
       ``(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated 
     sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, be 
     imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 30;
       ``(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting in 
     serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be 
     imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 20; 
     and
       ``(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any 
     term of years not less than 10.
       ``(b) Venue.--A prosecution for a violation of this section 
     may be brought in--
       ``(1) the judicial district in which the murder or other 
     crime of violence occurred; or
       ``(2) any judicial district in which the drug trafficking 
     crime may be prosecuted.
       ``(c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code; and
       ``(2) the term `drug trafficking crime' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 924(c)(2) of title 18, United 
     States Code.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     423, the following:

``Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in 
              relation to a drug trafficking crime.''.

     SEC. 107. MULTIPLE INTERSTATE MURDER.

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

     ``Sec. 1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the 
       commission of multiple murder

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever travels in or causes another 
     (including the intended victim) to travel in interstate or 
     foreign commerce, or uses or causes another (including the 
     intended victim) to use the mail or any facility of 
     interstate or foreign commerce, or who conspires or attempts 
     to do so, with intent that 2 or more intentional homicides be 
     committed in violation of the laws of any State or the United 
     States shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under 
     this title--
       ``(1) if the offense results in the death of any person, be 
     sentenced to death or life in prison;
       ``(2) if the offense results is assault resulting in 
     serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be 
     imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 20; 
     and
       ``(3) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any 
     term of years not less than 10.
       ``(b) Definition.--The term `State' means each of the 
     several States of the United States, the District of 
     Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of 
     the United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
              multiple murder.''.

     SEC. 108. ADDITIONAL RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.

        Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, or would have 
     been so chargeable if the act or threat had not been 
     committed in Indian country (as defined in section 1151) or 
     in any other area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction,'' after 
     ``chargeable under State law''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``section 1123 
     (relating to interstate murder),'' after ``section 1084 
     (relating to the transmission of gambling information),''.

     SEC. 109. EXPANSION OF REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST RELEASE 
                   OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH FIREARMS OFFENSES.

       Section 3142 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e), in the matter following paragraph 
     (3), by inserting ``an offense under subsection (g)(1) (where 
     the underlying conviction is a drug trafficking crime (as 
     defined in section 924(c))), (g)(2), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), 
     or (g)(9) of section 922, or a crime of violence,'' after 
     ``that the person committed''; and
       (2) in subsection (g), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, 
     including whether the offense is a crime of violence, or 
     involves a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or 
     destructive devise;''.

     SEC. 110. VENUE IN CAPITAL CASES.

       Section 3235 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 3235. Venue in capital cases

       ``(a) The trial for any offense punishable by death shall 
     be held in the district where the offense was committed or in 
     any district in which the offense began, continued, or was 
     completed.
       ``(b) If the offense, or related conduct, under subsection 
     (a) involves activities which affect interstate or foreign 
     commerce, or the importation of an object or person into the 
     United States, such offense may be prosecuted in any district 
     in which those activities occurred.''.

     SEC. 111. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIME.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 3298. Violent crime offenses

       ``No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any 
     noncapital felony, crime of violence, including any 
     racketeering activity or gang crime which involves any crime 
     of violence, unless the indictment is found or the 
     information is instituted not later than 15 years after the 
     date on which the alleged violation occurred or the 
     continuing offense was completed.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``3298. Violent crime offenses.''.

     SEC. 112. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF CRIME OF VIOLENCE.

       Section 16(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) any other offense that is an offense punishable by 
     imprisonment for more than one year and that, by its nature, 
     involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used 
     against the person or property of another, or is an offense 
     punishable under subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of section 
     401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act.''.

     SEC. 113. CLARIFICATION TO HEARSAY EXCEPTION FOR FORFEITURE 
                   BY WRONGDOING.

       Rule 804(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(6) Forfeiture by wrongdoing.--A statement offered 
     against a party who has engaged

[[Page 9178]]

     or acquiesced in wrongdoing, or who could reasonably foresee 
     such wrongdoing would take place, if the wrongdoing was 
     intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the 
     declarant as a witness.''.

     SEC. 114. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS IN 
                   CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING.

       (a) In General.--Section 924(c) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``or conspires to 
     commit any of the above acts, shall, for each instance in 
     which the firearm is used, carried, or possessed'';
       (B) in clause (i), by striking ``5 years'' and inserting 
     ``7 years''; and
       (C) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(ii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term 
     of imprisonment of not less than 15 years; and
       ``(iii) if the firearm is used to wound, injure, or maim 
     another person, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not 
     less than 20 years.''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (4).
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking subsection (o).

     SEC. 115. TRANSFER OF JUVENILES.

       The 4th undesignated paragraph of section 5032 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``A juvenile'' where it appears at the 
     beginning of the paragraph and inserting ``Except as 
     otherwise provided in this chapter, a juvenile'' ;
       (2) by striking ``as an adult, except that, with'' and 
     inserting ``as an adult. With''; and
       (3) by striking ``However, a juvenile'' and all that 
     follows through ``criminal prosecution.'' at the end of the 
     paragraph and inserting ``The Attorney General may prosecute 
     as an adult a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an 
     act after that juvenile's 16th birthday which if committed by 
     an adult would be a crime of violence that is a felony, an 
     offense described in subsection (d), (i), (j), (k), (o), (p), 
     (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating to unlawful acts), 
     or subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of 
     section 924 (relating to penalties), section 930 (relating to 
     possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal 
     facilities), or section 931 (relating to purchase, ownership, 
     or possession of body armor by violent felons). The decision 
     whether or not to prosecute a juvenile as an adult under the 
     immediately preceding sentence is not subject to judicial 
     review in any court. In a prosecution under that sentence, 
     the juvenile may be prosecuted and convicted as an adult for 
     any other offense which is properly joined under the Federal 
     Rules of Criminal Procedure, and may also be convicted as an 
     adult of any lesser included offense.''.

  TITLE II--INCREASED FEDERAL RESOURCES TO DETER AND PREVENT AT-RISK 
                YOUTH FROM JOINING ILLEGAL STREET GANGS

     SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF AND ASSISTANCE FOR ``HIGH 
                   INTENSITY'' INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY AREAS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section the following definitions 
     shall apply:
       (1) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means a Governor of a 
     State or the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
       (2) High intensity interstate gang activity area.--The term 
     ``high intensity interstate gang activity area'' means an 
     area within a State that is designated as a high intensity 
     interstate gang activity area under subsection (b)(1).
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States.
       (b) High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas.--
       (1) Designation.--The Attorney General, after consultation 
     with the Governors of appropriate States, may designate as 
     high intensity interstate gang activity areas, specific areas 
     that are located within 1 or more States.
       (2) Assistance.--In order to provide Federal assistance to 
     high intensity interstate gang activity areas, the Attorney 
     General shall--
       (A) establish criminal street gang enforcement teams, 
     consisting of Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     authorities, for the coordinated investigation, disruption, 
     apprehension, and prosecution of criminal street gangs and 
     offenders in each high intensity interstate gang activity 
     area;
       (B) direct the reassignment or detailing from any Federal 
     department or agency (subject to the approval of the head of 
     that department or agency, in the case of a department or 
     agency other than the Department of Justice) of personnel to 
     each criminal street gang enforcement team;
       (C) provide all necessary funding for the operation of the 
     criminal street gang enforcement team in each high intensity 
     interstate gang activity area; and
       (D) provide all necessary funding for national and regional 
     meetings of criminal street gang enforcement teams, and all 
     other related organizations, as needed, to ensure effective 
     operation of such teams through the sharing of intelligence, 
     best practices and for any other related purpose.
       (3) Composition of criminal street gang enforcement team.--
     The team established pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) shall 
     consist of agents and officers, where feasible, from--
       (A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
       (B) the Drug Enforcement Administration;
       (C) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
     Explosives;
       (D) the United States Marshals Service;
       (E) the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security 
     of the Department of Homeland Security;
       (F) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
       (G) State and local law enforcement; and
       (H) Federal, State, and local prosecutors.
       (4) Criteria for designation.--In considering an area for 
     designation as a high intensity interstate gang activity area 
     under this section, the Attorney General shall consider--
       (A) the current and predicted levels of gang crime activity 
     in the area;
       (B) the extent to which violent crime in the area appears 
     to be related to criminal street gang activity, such as drug 
     trafficking, murder, robbery, assaults, carjacking, arson, 
     kidnapping, extortion, and other criminal activity;
       (C) the extent to which State and local law enforcement 
     agencies have committed resources to--
       (i) respond to the gang crime problem; and
       (ii) participate in a gang enforcement team;
       (D) the extent to which a significant increase in the 
     allocation of Federal resources would enhance local response 
     to the gang crime activities in the area; and
       (E) any other criteria that the Attorney General considers 
     to be appropriate.
       (c) Additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys.--The Attorney 
     General is authorized to hire 94 additional Assistant United 
     States attorneys to carry out the provisions of this section. 
     Each attorney hired under this subsection shall be assigned 
     to a high intensity interstate gang activity area.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated--
       (1) $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 
     2010 to carry out subsection (b); and
       (2) $7,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 
     2010 to carry out subsection (c).

     SEC. 202. GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL PROSECUTORS TO COMBAT 
                   VIOLENT CRIME AND TO PROTECT WITNESSES AND 
                   VICTIMS OF CRIMES.

       (a) In General.--Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is amended 
     --
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) to hire additional prosecutors to--
       ``(A) allow more cases to be prosecuted; and
       ``(B) reduce backlogs;
       ``(6) to fund technology, equipment, and training for 
     prosecutors and law enforcement in order to increase accurate 
     identification of gang members and violent offenders, and to 
     maintain databases with such information to facilitate 
     coordination among law enforcement and prosecutors; and
       ``(7) to fund technology, equipment, and training for 
     prosecutors to increase the accurate identification and 
     successful prosecution of young violent offenders.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 31707 of the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 
     U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to carry out this 
     subtitle.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except those printed in House Report 109-76. Each amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1, printed in House 
Report 109-76.


              Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order 
under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:
       Page 4, lines 13 through 14, strike ``under subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), or (C)'' and insert ``under subparagraph (A), (B), 
     or (C)''.
       Page 4, line 23, insert ``(other than a crime of violence 
     against the property of another)'' before the period.
       Page 7, line 10 through the matter after line 2, page 9, 
     strike section 102 and insert the following:

     SEC. 102. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN 
                   TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION IN AID OF 
                   RACKETEERING.

       Section 1952 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``perform'' and all that 
     follows through the end of the

[[Page 9179]]

     subsection and inserting ``perform an act described in 
     paragraph (1), (2), or (3), or conspires to do so, shall be 
     punished as provided in subsection (d).''; and
       (2) by adding at the end following:
       ``(d) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) 
     is--
       ``(1) in the case of a violation of paragraph (1) or (3), a 
     fine under this title and imprisonment for not less than 5 
     nor more than 20 years; and
       ``(2) in the case of a violation of paragraph (2), a fine 
     under this title and imprisonment for not less than 10 nor 
     more than 30 years, but if death results the offender shall 
     be sentenced to death, or to imprisonment for any term of 
     years or for life.''.
       Page 9, line 24, strike ``drug trafficking crime,'' and 
     insert ``drug trafficking crime (as defined in subsection 
     (c)(2)),''.
       Page 11, line 11, strike ``this title'' and insert ``this 
     title--''.
       Page 12, line 10, insert ``, as consideration for the 
     receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to 
     pay, anything of pecuniary value from an enterprise engaged 
     in racketeering activity, or'' after ``crime of violence''.
       Page 13, line 8, strike ``following: --'' and insert 
     ``following:''.
       Page 15, line 7, strike ``423,'' and insert ``423''.
       Page 16, line 1, strike ``is assault resulting''.
       Page 19, line 8, strike ``force may be used against'' and 
     insert ``injury may result to''.
       Page 19, line 10, strike ``subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C)'' 
     and insert ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)''.
       Page 20, after line 17, insert the following new subsection 
     and redesignate the succeeding subsection accordingly:
       (b) Clarification of Ban on Possession of Handguns by 
     Juveniles.--Section 922(x)(3) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a 
     juvenile, while in the presence of a parent or guardian of 
     the juvenile, if such parent or guardian, as the case may be, 
     is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from 
     possessing a firearm. ''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


      Modification to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment be modified by the form that I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. 
     Sensenbrenner: Strike that portion of the amendment which 
     proposes to insert material on page 20.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
would ask the gentleman to please explain the modification, if that is 
not part of his presentation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the material that is on page 20 
relates to a clarification of the ban on possession of hand guns by 
juveniles. It appears to me that the clarification does not clarify the 
statute. The best thing to do is to completely remove the clarification 
as was proposed, thus leaving the current law intact, which means that 
if a juvenile possesses a hand gun, he will have to have a written note 
stating that he is authorized to do so from his parent.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. 
Chairman, how does the modification change the original manager's 
amendment?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
the original manager's amendment said if the parent accompanied the 
juvenile, the juvenile did not have to have the note. What this 
modification does is to require the juvenile to continue having the 
note.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this manager's amendment to correct and clarify 
several provisions of the legislation. Let me briefly summarize the 
changes made by the amendment, as modified.
  First, the amendment would exclude property crimes from the crime of 
violence definition of the gang crime statute created by this 
legislation. The purpose of this change is to ensure that the gang 
crime statute is applied as intended to dismantle and disrupt violent 
gangs and to prevent unintended application of the statute for property 
crimes.

                              {time}  1515

  Second, the amendment would add conspiracies as a criminal violation 
and increase criminal penalties for any such violation under section 
1952 of title 18, Interstate and Foreign Travel in Aid of Racketeering 
Enterprises.
  Third, the manager's amendment would ensure that a portion of title 
18 under existing law, which was inadvertently omitted from the 
introduced and reported versions of H.R. 1279, is not changed as a 
result of enacting this legislation.
  Fourth, the amendment would clarify the crime of violence definition 
under section 16(b) of title 18 to include an act that by its nature 
creates a substantial risk that physical injury may result to a person 
or property of another.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to seek 
the time in opposition although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for working with me on this section, section 922(x) which he 
just basically took out. I appreciate him working with us on that 
issue.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, addressing gang violence across this Nation is 
absolutely an important step so that people can feel safe in their 
communities and so that our youth will grow up to be productive, happy, 
satisfied adults. While I commend my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle for addressing this important issue, I am deeply disappointed 
in their legislation.
  Gang violence affects most communities across the United States. In 
fact, I represented the Sixth District of California, which is north of 
the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. In my district, there is no 
exception. We too have gang violence. The largest city in my district, 
Santa Rosa, is increasingly faced with gang violence. Drive-by 
shootings are becoming so common that the newspapers no longer report 
the incidents on the front page.
  Local communities must address this problem, no question; and Santa 
Rosa is working hard to do so. With the help of new State of California 
funding through Measure Zero, a sales tax that passed in the last go-
around, the city is providing diversion programs that appeal to youth, 
such as after-school programs and increased recreational activities. 
Community leaders are finding more job opportunities for young people, 
and adults are mentoring them and exposing them to situations that are 
positive alternatives to gang life. Even the conservative think tank, 
Mr. Speaker, the Heritage Foundation, agrees that these are the best 
ways to curb gang violence.
  This bill does not provide significant funding to States and local 
communities to build on their successful local

[[Page 9180]]

programs. Rather, H.R. 1279 creates new death penalties, mandatory 
minimum sentences, and measures to prosecute children in adult court, 
in other words, applying adult punishment to young people. This is the 
wrong approach, and I cannot support it. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in opposing H.R. 1279 and insisting that we go back and prepare 
legislation with real workable solutions and alternatives to gang 
violence.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 109-76.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cuellar

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Cuellar:
       Page 26, after line 2, insert the following (and 
     redesignate succeeding subsections accordingly):
       (c) National Gang Intelligence Center.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Attorney General shall establish a 
     National Gang Intelligence Center to be housed at and 
     administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to 
     collect, analyze, and disseminate gang activity information 
     from--
       (A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
       (B) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
     Explosives;
       (C) the Drug Enforcement Administration;
       (D) the Bureau of Prisons;
       (E) the United States Marshals Service;
       (F) the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security 
     of the Department of Homeland Security;
       (G) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
       (H) State and local law enforcement;
       (I) Federal, State, and local prosecutors;
       (J) Federal, State, and local probation and parole offices; 
     and
       (K) Federal, State, and local prisons and jails.
       (2) Information.--The Center established under paragraph 
     (1) shall make available the information referred to in 
     paragraph (1) to--
       (A) Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies;
       (B) Federal, State, and local corrections agencies and 
     penal institutions; and
       (C) Federal, State, and local prosecutorial agencies.
       (3) Annual report.--The Center established under paragraph 
     (1) shall annually submit to Congress a report on gang 
     activity.
       Page 26, line 10, strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$60,000,000''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that gangs are no longer just an urban 
problem. They affect every community. As law enforcement officials from 
big cities to small towns will tell you, to combat the problem we all 
need to work together, share information, and identify the issues that 
will help us strike at the heart of gang violence. My amendment gives 
us the means to do just that.
  It would establish a national gang intelligence center at the FBI to 
help law enforcement officials across the country share information 
about gangs and gang members so that we can identify emerging problems 
before they take root. Last year, $10 million was appropriated for the 
center, an effort led by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who 
has long been a strong supporter of law enforcement. My amendment would 
simply authorize the creation of the center.
  Mr. Chairman, by helping law enforcement share information, we will 
be giving our police on the streets a powerful tool in the fight 
against violence and help them better protect our citizens.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the 
gentleman's amendment. It provides an authorization for a program that 
already has been funded by the Committee on Appropriations. It is a 
good amendment. It helps the bill out. I urge Members to vote for it.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 109-76.


     Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
     Texas:
       Page 26, after line 2, insert the following new subsection 
     (and redesignate succeeding subsections accordingly):
       (c) National and Regional Gang Activity Databases.--
       (1) Databases required.--From amounts made available to 
     carry out this section, the Attorney General shall 
     establish--
       (A) for each high intensity interstate gang activity area, 
     a regional gang activity database; and
       (B) a national gang activity database that replicates the 
     information in the regional databases.
       (2) Description.--Each regional gang activity database 
     required by paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) be designed to disseminate gang information to law 
     enforcement agencies throughout the region;
       (B) contain critical information on gangs, gang members, 
     firearms, criminal activities, vehicles, and other 
     information useful for investigators in solving gang-related 
     crimes; and
       (C) operate in a manner that enables law enforcement 
     agencies to--
       (i) identify gang members involved in crimes;
       (ii) track the movement of gangs and members throughout the 
     region;
       (iii) coordinate police response to gang violence;
       (iv) enhance officer safety;
       (v) provide realistic, up to date figures and statistical 
     data on gang crime and violence;
       (vi) forecast trends and respond accordingly; and
       (vii) more easily solve crimes and prevent violence.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Let me applaud the author and the ranking member and the Chair of 
this committee for addressing the issue of gangs. I do not agree with 
all of the approach, but I do agree we need to address the issue, and I 
rise today to speak about the creation of databases to track gang 
activity.
  In addition to developing a solid gang prevention strategy, we must 
equip our law enforcement professionals with the tools to protect our 
communities. Recently, law enforcement in Dallas spoke to me regarding 
their desire to track gang activity. I work closely with the law 
enforcement divisions in my area, and they wanted a system that would 
allow them to easily access and share information on gang activity. I 
am offering an amendment that will do just that.
  This database will contain critical information on gangs, gang 
members, firearms, criminal activities and histories, vehicles, and 
other fields of information necessary for investigators to solve gang-
related crimes.
  In addition, it will allow law enforcement to track the movement of 
gangs and members throughout the country, coordinate police response to 
gang violence, and enhance officer safety. This system is a fundamental 
step in combating future gang violence. I ask my colleagues for their 
support for this important amendment.

[[Page 9181]]


  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding. This is also a very good amendment. I would hope everybody 
would support it.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 109-76.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Watson

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Watson:
       Page 26, after line 2, insert the following:
       (5) Consultation required.--The Attorney General may not 
     designate a high intensity interstate gang activity area 
     without first consulting with and receiving comment from 
     local elected officials representing communities within the 
     State of proposed designation.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I would also like to 
thank my colleagues on the Committee on Rules for allowing me to bring 
this important issue to the floor today. This amendment would require 
the Attorney General to seek input from local elected officials before 
designating an area as a high-intensity interstate gang activity area. 
The bill currently only requires the Attorney General to consult 
Governors of the States. California is three States in one; and for a 
person like me who lives in South Los Angeles, right in the middle of a 
gang area, I would have a lot to tell about designating that gang area.
  The underlying bill gives local communities no input. My amendment 
would simply require the Attorney General to seek input from local 
elected officials before designating an area as being a high-intensity 
gang area. This amendment is not intended to slow down the process of 
designation or give local officials veto power that supersedes the 
power of Federal and State officials. Rather, it lets the communities 
and the people that represent them have a voice in the decision-making.
  Addressing the gang problem in our communities is an issue that 
requires all levels of government working together. Who knows better 
the problems facing these communities' constituents than the 
communities themselves? Reducing gang violence requires hands-on 
intervention and input from those most affected by gang violence.
  These communities know, first-hand, the damage gang violence does in 
their neighborhoods everyday. Their opinions should be heard on the 
state and federal levels.
  The communities affected by gang violence must have the chance to 
express their views before neighborhoods are classified as a High 
Intensity Gang Area. Local officials know better than anyone else what 
is occurring on a day to day basis in their jurisdictions. This 
amendment would allow participation on all levels of government in this 
designation process. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment and allow local elected officials, in conjunction with 
federal and state officials, to have input on how their communities are 
branded as High Intensity Gang Areas.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This also is 
a very good amendment. I would hope that the Committee would 
unanimously approve it.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the Members would support my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 109-76.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Watson

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Watson:
       Page 26, after line 7, insert the following:
       (d) Additional BATFE Inspectors and Agents.--The Attorney 
     General, acting through the Director of the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, is authorized to 
     hire 100 additional inspectors and 100 additional agents for 
     the Bureau. Each inspector and agent hired under this 
     subsection shall be assigned to a high intensity interstate 
     gang activity area, for the purpose of assisting local law 
     enforcement agencies to provide more accurate and complete 
     reports to the Bureau of weapons used by gangs in the area.
       Page 26, line 8, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       Page 26, line 11, strike ``and''.
       Page 26, line 13, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 26, after line 13, insert the following:
       (3) $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 
     2010 to carry out subsection (d).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would add 100 new inspectors and 100 new agents to the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. These inspectors 
and agents would be assigned to the new high-intensity interstate gang 
activity areas created by H.R. 1279.
  As I mentioned, my congressional district is part of a high-crime 
area, and there is a gun shop in it that has sparked my attention in 
recent months. I have been working with BATFE to ensure that this shop 
does not become a source of gang weaponry in my district. One comment I 
have repeatedly heard from the bureau is that they simply do not have 
the personnel necessary to crack down on gun-law violators and keep 
guns out of the hands of violent gangs.
  The lack of proper inspections and detailed reports on how guns get 
into the hands of gang members hampers the fight against these violent 
gangs. Congress must assist the bureau by allowing it to have an 
adequate amount of staff to accurately investigate how illegal guns are 
getting into our communities and make every effort to remove weapons 
from gang members' hands.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding. She has got a second good amendment. I urge the Committee to 
approve it and allow her to leave batting 2 for 2.
  Ms. WATSON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will just finish up.
  These additional inspectors and agents are essential because they 
would be assigned to assist local law enforcement to cut off the supply 
of weapons and ammunition to gang members. This amendment would also 
help local law enforcement and the BATFE compile much-needed data on 
how weapons are obtained and used by gangs.
  This amendment is not a gun control amendment; it is a law 
enforcement amendment. By improving our enforcement of existing gun 
laws, gang members will lose the dominating weaponry that permits gangs 
to outgun police and kill innocent people.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should make every effort to prevent 
gang members

[[Page 9182]]

from obtaining their ``Weapons of Mass Destruction.'' I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment and help the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives continue the assault on crime in our 
communities while cutting off the flow of guns to gang members.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 109-76.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Wynn

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Wynn:
       Page 22, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 116. PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN ABOUT NEW CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

       The Attorney General is authorized to conduct media 
     campaigns in those areas designated as high intensity 
     interstate gang activity areas and those areas with existing 
     and emerging problem with gangs, as needed, to educate 
     individuals there about the changes in criminal penalties 
     made by this Act, and to report to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives the amount of 
     expenditures and all other aspects of the media campaign.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it is very laudable that we are taking up the issue of gun 
violence and gang violence. This is a problem that affects just about 
every community; and I think this bill, while I do not agree with all 
of its approaches, certainly has merit. It relies in significant part 
on mandatory minimum sentences. Some people will say we have gone too 
far. The point is with mandatory minimums, you have two aspects: one, 
the punitive aspect. We will get bad actors off the street. The second 
aspect is deterrence. People being aware of mandatory minimums will 
not, in fact, do the crime. In the instance of a 30-year mandatory 
minimum sentence for murder, for sexual assault, for maiming, this is 
designed to discourage people from engaging in this conduct.
  My amendment would simply authorize the Attorney General to engage in 
a media campaign to let people know about these new mandatory minimums 
so that we can, in fact, have a deterrent effect.

                              {time}  1530

  The deterrence requires a certain knowledge of the consequences of 
one's acts. By having a media campaign, we are in a position to let 
young people who may be either in a gang or contemplating joining a 
gang understand that, if they engage in a maiming, cutting off 
someone's arm, if they engage in an aggravated sexual assault, that 
they are facing a potential 30-year mandatory minimum sentence, the 
idea being that this mandatory minimum sentence would discourage the 
conduct. I think the media campaign contained and authorized under this 
amendment would further that goal. So I would ask for favorable 
consideration.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, another good amendment has been 
offered, and I would urge the Committee to adopt that, and I thank the 
gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 109-76.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Goodlatte:
       Page 22, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 116. CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AND DRUG CRIMES COMMITTED BY 
                   ILLEGAL ALIENS.

       (a) Offenses.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after chapter 51 the following new chapter:

                      ``CHAPTER 52--ILLEGAL ALIENS

``Sec.
``1131. Enhanced penalties for certain crimes committed by illegal 
              aliens.

     ``Sec. 1131. Enhanced penalties for certain crimes committed 
       by illegal aliens

       ``Whoever, being an alien who is unlawfully present in the 
     United States, commits, conspires or attempts to commit, a 
     crime of violence (as defined in section 16) or a drug 
     trafficking offense (as defined in section 924), shall be 
     fined under this title and sentenced to not less than 5 years 
     in prison. If the defendant was previously ordered removed 
     under the Immigration and Nationality Act on the grounds of 
     having committed a crime, the defendant shall be sentenced to 
     not less than 15 years in prison . A sentence of imprisonment 
     imposed under this section shall run consecutively to any 
     other sentence of imprisonment imposed for any other 
     crime.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 51 
     the following new item:

``52. Illegal aliens............................................1131''.

     SEC. 117. LISTING OF IMMIGRATION VIOLATORS IN THE NATIONAL 
                   CRIME INFORMATION CENTER DATABASE.

       (a) Provision of Information to the NCIC.--Not later than 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Under 
     Secretary for Border and Transportation Security of the 
     Department of Homeland Security shall provide the National 
     Crime Information Center of the Department of Justice with 
     such information as the Director may have on any and all 
     aliens against whom a final order of removal has been issued, 
     and any and all aliens who have signed a voluntary departure 
     agreement. Such information shall be provided to the National 
     Crime Information Center regardless of whether or not the 
     alien received notice of a final order of removal and even if 
     the alien has already been removed.
       (b) Inclusion of Information in the NCIC Database.--Section 
     534(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve records of 
     violations of the immigration laws of the United States, 
     regardless of whether or not the alien has received notice of 
     the violation and even if the alien has already been removed; 
     and''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise to offer an amendment to crack down on gangs comprised of 
illegal aliens, such as MS-13, which Newsweek recently called ``the 
most dangerous gang in America.''
  In my congressional district alone, we have recently witnessed a 
disturbing rise in the level of gang activity as well as the number of 
illegal aliens participating in this gang activity. The FBI has 
recognized the existence of at least six separate gangs in the 
Shenandoah Valley, with the largest being the notorious Salvadoran gang 
Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13. MS-13 is known for such heinous crimes as 
shootings, rapes and machete attacks, among others, and is estimated to 
have over 1,500 members in northern and northwestern Virginia alone.
  The number of gang members and violent criminals who are illegal 
aliens and who have been previously deported is staggering. Recently, 
at the Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Subcommittee, 
Commonwealth's Attorney Marsha Garst of Rockingham County, Virginia, 
testified that illegal aliens make up 50 percent of the membership of 
MS-13 and 75 percent of the

[[Page 9183]]

membership of another gang in that area, Surenos 13.
  According to the FBI, MS-13 is a highly sophisticated gang of illegal 
and previously deported aliens that is committed to national expansion 
in the United States and is built on a infrastructure which transports 
new members or previously deported members across our borders with the 
intention and plan to expand their activities into new communities and 
enrich themselves all at the expense of our communities and our law-
abiding neighbors. Make no mistake about it: MS-13 is committed to a 
war by invading and taking over our communities, and deportation means 
nothing to them because they simply return to our country with yet 
another new identity, crossing our borders without any reservation and 
resuming their illegal activities, terrorizing our communities without 
fear of harsh punishment.
  It is now time for us to disable MS-13 and its vicious cycle of 
violence. My amendment does just that. It gives law enforcement the 
ability to tack on more severe punishments rather than simply returning 
MS-13 members to El Salvador or other countries where they will turn 
around and sneak right across our borders once again. If faced with a 
choice of putting these gang members in jail or deporting them and 
having them return, the choice is clear: We must incarcerate them and 
bring freedom back to our neighborhoods.
  The growth in illegal alien participation gangs is not limited to 
Virginia or just to MS-13. Across the Nation, the number of illegal 
aliens joining gangs and the number of gang members who have re-entered 
the country after deportation is alarming. According to the testimony 
of Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, a confidential 
California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent 
of the 20,000-strong ``18th Street gang'' in Southern California was 
illegal. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conservatively puts the 
number of illegal aliens in MS-13 as a majority. Sixty percent of the 
leadership of the ``Colombia Lil' Cycos'' gang, which uses murder and 
racketeering to control the drug market around Los Angeles' MacArthur 
Park, consisted of illegal aliens in 2002. And according to the Los 
Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Department arrests about 2,500 
criminally convicted deportees annually. Let me make that clear: 
Annually, the Los Angeles Police Department estimates that 2,500 of the 
people that they arrest each year have already previously committed a 
crime and already previously been deported, and they have come back 
into the country, and 2,500 of them are arrested yet again.
  My amendment would help to stop the entry and re-entry of gang 
members into the country by imposing strict penalties on illegal aliens 
who participate in gang activities and who have already shown they will 
commit violent crimes and drug-trafficking offenses. With stiff new 
penalties, we can deter these gang members from re-entering the United 
States with the intention of joining or resuming violent gang 
activities.
  Specifically, my amendment would add 5 years of prison time to any 
sentence for violent crimes or drug-trafficking offenses when the 
violator is an illegal alien. It will also add 15 years of prison time 
to any such sentence if the illegal alien had been previously deported 
on the grounds of a criminal offense and had re-entered the country. In 
addition, the amendment would require the Department of Homeland 
Security to send all the names of individuals who are subject to 
deportation orders or who have signed voluntary deportation orders to 
the National Crime Information Center, the NCIC, so that information on 
illegal alien gang members can be more easily accessed.
  We must shut down this revolving door of criminal illegal aliens. It 
is time to say to them, if they come here illegally and commit a gang 
crime, they will do the time. Our children and our communities deserve 
nothing less.
  This amendment will give law enforcement additional tools in the 
fight against some of the most vicious gangs in America and will help 
deter violent criminals from entering the country to join gangs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the House that it is already illegal 
to murder, rape, kidnap, cut off hands with machete attacks, conspiracy 
to do any of those acts. We lock people up for that. In fact, since we 
are talking about immigrants, one in 27 Hispanic males 25 to 29 are in 
jail today already. Those are crimes. They are doing the time. Also, 
for those who are crossing State lines and all that, we have RICO, 
Continuing Criminal Enterprise. That is already the law.
  But this amendment just adds insult. And let us be clear: Second-
offense fist fight by a bunch of kids, under the bill, is 10 years 
mandatory minimum. This adds 5 years to the 10-year mandatory minimum 
for second-offense fist fighting. I think that is excessive. If the 
fist fight deserves more time, the Sentencing Commission can deal with 
that. I would hope that we would defeat the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the distinguished author of 
this amendment if this idea occurred to him during the time that we 
considered the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary? Because I have 
never heard of this before.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this is something that has been 
discussed since the committee acted and passed the legislation out, but 
we felt very strongly that this would be a good addition to the 
legislation because of the fact that so many of these gang members are 
illegal aliens who have re-entered the country after already having 
been deported and having committed crimes earlier. Something needs to 
be done more than simple deportation when they come right back in and 
commit more crimes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but we are trying to 
get rid of criminals from coming into the country, and what the 
gentleman is doing in this amendment is keeping them in the country. In 
other words, deporting them is not good enough. We want to keep them in 
our prison systems, which now house more citizens, and now, we are 
adding noncitizens to the population of those incarcerated in America. 
And I have some reservations about piling it on. We have never talked 
about this position before in the subcommittee or full committee of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to make 
that observation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that this has a great 
deterrent effect. When the word gets out that they come back into this 
country and they get arrested after they have been deported and they 
are going to do serious time in the slammer, they are not as likely to 
come back. And with the efforts that are ongoing with the REAL ID Act, 
we are going to keep a lot of these people out of the country with that 
method, and we are going to find them when they come into the country 
and try to get driver's licenses. But when they do, they need to know 
that they are going to face serious time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf), a real leader in the war against gangs in America.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Let me 
read an article from the Washington Post, ``In what officials suspect 
is the latest horror committed by gangs, 28 people, including six 
children, were killed December 24 when gunmen opened fire on a bus full 
of passengers near the northern Honduran city of San Pedro Sula.'' 
Twenty-eight individuals, six of them were children.

[[Page 9184]]

  Another article said there was a request by the presidents of four 
Central American countries for help in gang battles. The request came 
as U.S. authorities revealed that they had issued an alert for the 
suspected mastermind of the killing of these 28 people near San Pedro 
Sula. The individual is a suspected member of the MS-13 gang and may 
have already entered the United States illegally.
  The gentleman is right. That individual who was involved in the 
killing of 28 individuals in San Pedro Sula in Honduras was arrested in 
McAllen, Texas, coming back into the country after killing 28 people.
  I think the gentleman's amendment is exactly right on target. There 
are many cases whereby they come back into the country and commit 
violent crimes after having committed violent crimes down in El 
Salvador. But 28 people in that little village in that town of San 
Pedro Sula, and then the man is arrested not in Honduras but up here in 
Texas.
  With that, I just urge Members to strongly support the amendment. It 
is very good.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. And 
I am surprised that my friend would propose that we increase the amount 
of money that taxpayers are paying for incarceration to now expand it 
to illegal aliens who commit crimes, leave the country and come back 
in. Where are we going to get all of this money?
  We have one of the highest incarceration rates of any nation in the 
entire world. And we are spending a disproportionate amount of money on 
incarceration.
  I submit to my colleagues that I think deportation is the answer, but 
have they thought about the fact that they should place the 
responsibility on keeping these criminals out of the country on the 
heads of the leaders of those countries?
  We go right along with the leaders of these countries on trade 
agreements, on foreign assistance, with all kinds of assistance to 
these governments.
  I would submit to my colleagues that if they submit the name of 
everybody that they deport and they send them back and they say to the 
leaders of these countries, if these people come back, we are going to 
penalize you in one of several ways that we cooperate with you; again, 
we have so many ways that we provide assistance to other countries, and 
we have got to make them responsible for keeping their criminals at 
home.
  So I do not like the idea that we have a problem and that we are 
deporting criminals, and they are coming back, and we are going to make 
the American people pay for it. Make those other governments pay for 
it. Do not end up in press conferences with this administration, the 
head of our government's Members of Congress, working out all kinds of 
arrangements with these governments to help them in so many ways, 
whether it is trade, foreign assistance or 909 other ways that we help 
them. Make them keep their criminals at home.

                              {time}  1545

  Penalize them if they do not. Do not charge the American taxpayer.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am sure the President of Honduras 
would have loved to have kept the person who killed the 26 people in 
his country there and tried him and punished him there; but the fact of 
the matter is, the borders are leaky. Some of us have been trying to 
ensure the security of the borders through various measures, like the 
REAL ID Act, which has been signed. I would hope that that concern 
would spread as we deal with other immigration matters such as the 
numbers of border patrol people that we need to put on the border.
  I support this amendment because it creates enhanced penalties for 
illegal aliens or those ordered deported on the grounds of having 
committed a crime who subsequently commit a crime of violence or a 
drug-trafficking crime.
  An illegal alien who commits a drug-trafficking crime or crime of 
violence would receive a consecutive sentence of 5 years, and an alien 
who previously has been deported for a crime and subsequently commits a 
crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime would receive a 
consecutive sentence of 15 years. In addition, the amendment would 
require the Department of Homeland Security to provide the National 
Crime Information Center with information on illegal aliens.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is exactly right, as is the 
chairman. Here we have a Los Angeles Times story: ``Four presidents 
seek help in gang battle. Central American leaders say the groups pose 
a hemispheric threat augmented by U.S. deportation of criminals.''
  You cannot keep sending them back down there where they have no 
ability to handle them and they come right back up here and commit more 
crimes on our citizens. This is an important amendment that will give 
teeth to the message: do not come back in the United States. If you do, 
we are going to keep you in the slammer.
  There are many, many examples of what illegal aliens have done. In 
Virginia, recent gang victims have been hacked by machetes and had 
fingers cut off. In May 2004, a 16-year-old boy in Fairfax County had 
several fingers chopped off in an attack by a machete-wielding 
assailant. A week later, a 17-year-old youth was shot dead in Herndon 
by an assailant on a bicycle. In July 17, 2003, in Shenandoah County, 
Virginia, MS-13 gang members violently murdered a 17-year-old pregnant 
Federal witness, Brenda Paz, before she could testify in a pending 
Federal trial in the Eastern District of Virginia against MS-13.
  Send these guys to jail when they come back into this country after 
being deported. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the House that it is illegal to 
chop off fingers and you will be given more time than this bill will 
provide. Murdering 28 people is also already illegal, whether this bill 
passes or not.
  But this amendment just adds insult to injury. If a child comes into 
the country because his parents snuck into the country to work, this 
bill, the underlying bill provides for a 10-year mandatory minimum for 
a fist -fight. This just adds 5 more years of insult.
  I would hope we defeat the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 109-76.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Norwood

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

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Norwood:
       Page 22, line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 116. LISTING OF IMMIGRATION VIOLATORS IN THE NATIONAL 
                   CRIME INFORMATION CENTER DATABASE.

       (a) Provision of Information to the NCIC.--Not later than 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Under 
     Secretary for Border and Transportation Security of the 
     Department of Homeland Security shall provide the National 
     Crime Information Center of the Department of Justice with 
     such information as the Director may

[[Page 9185]]

     have on any and all aliens against whom a final order of 
     removal has been issued, any and all aliens who have signed a 
     voluntary departure agreement, and any and all aliens who 
     have overstayed their visa. Such information shall be 
     provided to the National Crime Information Center regardless 
     of whether or not the alien received notice of a final order 
     of removal and even if the alien has already been removed.
       (b) Inclusion of Information in the NCIC Database.--Section 
     534(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve records of 
     violations of the immigration laws of the United States, 
     regardless of whether or not the alien has received notice of 
     the violation and even if the alien has already been removed; 
     and''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to require the 
Department of Homeland Security within 6 months to get information on a 
number of types of criminal illegal aliens into the National Crime 
Information Center. This makes sense for law enforcement, it makes 
sense if you are going to go after the gang problem, and it even makes 
sense to address our illegal immigration problem.
  The NCIC is a computerized index of criminal justice information 
available to the Federal, State, local law enforcement, and other 
criminal justice agencies. It is operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a 
year. This information helps apprehend fugitives, locates missing 
persons or property, and protects law enforcement officers. All records 
in NCIC are protected from unauthorized access.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues, there should be no fear 
in using this database to get this vital information into the hands of 
law enforcement. It is a good system. It is a tested one.
  Under my amendment, information on three types of aliens would be 
included in the National Crime Information Center: first, those aliens 
with a final order of removal issued against them. These are absconders 
who are flagrantly violating our laws.
  Recent estimates, remember that word ``estimates,'' recent estimates 
say that there are over 400,000 in our country today. Of this number, 
approximately 85,000 are criminal aliens. I do not mean jaywalkers 
either. I mean murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
  Second, there are those who signed a volunteer deportation order.
  The third group, a very important group, are those who have 
overstayed their visas.
  Essentially, we are dealing with those who our government says should 
not be here, those who have themselves said they should not be here, 
and those who are overstaying their permission to be here.
  This first category, visa overstays, is the difference between the 
language in my amendment and that of the previous one offered by my 
good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who 
incorporated much of my language into his good amendment; and I applaud 
him for that.
  Lest my colleagues forget, this final category, those who overstay 
their visas, has given us some of the most heinous criminals recently. 
The chief planner of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta, overstayed his 
visa, along with a number of other hijackers.
  Sheik Omar Rahman, the spiritual leader of the World Trade Center 
bombers and the plot to attack New York City landmarks, overstayed his 
visa, among other immigration violations.
  Mahmud Abouhalima entered on a tourist visa in 1985, which expired in 
the spring of 1986. He was given permanent residence in 1988 as part of 
an amnesty for agriculture workers. There was no evidence, however, 
that he was ever an agriculture worker. He made several trips to 
Afghanistan where he received combat training. He was implicated as a 
lead organizer in the 1993 plots to bomb New York landmarks.
  Mohammed Salameh entered on a 6-month tourist visa issued in Jordan 
in 1988. He should never have qualified for the visa by law as he fit 
the profile of intending immigrant. He rented the truck in the 1993 WTO 
bombing.
  Eyad Ismoil entered on a student visa in 1989, left school after 
three semesters, violating the terms of his visa, and became an illegal 
alien. He later drove the World Trade Center van full of explosives.
  More facts about visa overstays that might startle folks a little 
bit: at least 40 percent of the noncitizens who stay in the United 
States illegally, and perhaps more than half, did not sneak across the 
border. Visa overstays were described as a ``disturbing and persistent 
problem'' in a report by the Justice Department's Inspector General.
  Now, here is the punch line. This was all written on November 8, 
1998, in the Dallas Morning News, nearly 3 years before the attacks of 
9/11, and approximately 6\1/2\ years ago. This visa overstay language 
is therefore key to this amendment and key to our safety and security.
  This amendment is necessary. This language regarding visa overstays 
makes us safer. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has 
expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because we have not studied this. 
This issue did not come before the committee. We do not know anything 
about the accuracy of the data that may be circulated. We do not know 
what it is going to cost. And we particularly do not know whether or 
not this is a good cost-effective way of providing homeland security. 
For example, this will do nothing to prevent an Oklahoma bombing, where 
the problem was domestic.
  If we are going to spend money in homeland security, we ought to put 
it where it is most needed. We have not studied to determine whether 
this is the best use of the money or not. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I 
would hope we would not pass this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is very kind.
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell you the NCIC system works. After 6\1/2\ 
years, it is overdue time we tried to do something about the visas.
  I will take just a minute to thank the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary for a great bill. I appreciate so much his support in 
this, as well as the support of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and all their 
good work. We are finally, finally trying to do something about this 
terrible problem of illegal immigrants.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we defeat the amendment. As I said, it may or 
may not, we do not know, be a cost-effective use of the taxpayers' 
money.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  The amendment was agreed to
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 109-76.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Norwood

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


[[Page 9186]]

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Norwood:
       Page 22, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 116. STUDY.

       The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall jointly conduct a study on the connection between 
     illegal immigration and gang membership and activity, 
     including how many of those arrested nationwide for gang 
     membership and violence are aliens illegally present in the 
     United States. The Attorney General and the Secretary shall 
     report the results of that study to Congress not later than 
     one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I point to the previous amendment where we talked about 
estimates a little bit. Well, this is dealing with estimates. This 
amendment would simply require a study conducted jointly by the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice on the 
link between illegal aliens and gang membership. Surprisingly, despite 
the overwhelming agreement from all parties that the two are linked, 
there is no comprehensive report anywhere that we can find on this 
topic. It is time for that to change.
  Congressional testimony on April 13 of this year produced some 
important anecdotal evidence of the need of this sort of data. Before 
the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Marsha 
Garst offered some statistics in relation to some problems in the 
Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. She indicated the gangs there are nearly 
75 percent composed of illegal aliens. She also related that a number 
of the illegal alien gang members had been previously deported, proving 
that we are not doing our job on the borders.
  A second witness at the same hearing was Heather MacDonald of the 
Manhattan Institute. She has research that is helpful to this subject, 
but somewhat out of date. She indicated that a confidential California 
Department of Justice study from 1995 said that 60 percent of the 
20,000-member 18th Street Gang in Southern California are illegal. 
Also, that the leadership of the Colombian Lil' Cycos Gang, who control 
some markets in L.A., was about 60 percent illegal in 2002. ICE 
officials put the number of illegals among MS-13 members at simply ``a 
majority.''
  We need to do better than just know ``a majority.'' If you are not 
convinced, just listen to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), who is the Subcommittee on Immigration 
chairman. He indicated in his statement: ``While there are an estimated 
750,000 to 800,000 gang members in the Nation, there are no firm 
estimates on how many of these gang members are aliens and how many are 
citizens.'' His point should not go unaddressed.
  So we again are saying today that our porous borders are a problem 
for our citizens. This time it is crime, sometimes deadly in our 
neighborhoods and streets. Despite this very clear link between gangs 
and illegal aliens, there is not a study that I located anywhere that 
addresses this issue.

                              {time}  1600

  I think that it is long past due for that to change.
  People say that addicts have to first admit that they have a problem 
before they can move on and get help. This study is a good way for us 
to finally admit that we have a major problem and seek ways then to 
correct the problem. I hope that we will not take too long to seek that 
help, and I would be happy to assist with a solution, because it is an 
issue that I have worked on and been very interested in for a long 
time.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and help us finally get 
the facts about the nationwide scope of what we are dealing with in 
terms of illegal aliens and gang membership.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say, this is interesting timing of the amendment, 
because we just passed the Goodlatte amendment, and now we are going to 
study, I guess, whether or not we should have passed it because, as the 
gentleman from Georgia has indicated, we do not know the link between 
illegal aliens and gang membership, and so we have to study it. We just 
passed an amendment to add 5 years mandatory minimum to sentences if a 
couple of them get into a fist fight. So I guess it is nice to know 
whether we should have passed it or not, but I just want to point out 
that it is an interesting place to consider this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I will simply say to my 
friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that this is not an 
amendment that justifies or does not justify the previous amendment. 
This is an effort to get the facts on what we already know. If you ride 
around at all, you do not have to go very far to determine what the 
problem is in this country.
  I ask all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote to 
help protect this country from illegal immigrants.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, allow me to shock the Members on the 
opposite side of the aisle and join with them in support of this 
amendment.
  Mas vale tarde que nunca. It means, better late than never. And while 
my colleague here, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), is 
absolutely correct, we have put the cart before the horse, I suppose it 
is never too late to try and correct our errors.
  I do think that we should have been involved in studies a long time 
ago. We are basically forever speculating and coming up with anecdotes 
without a basis of facts for our decisions. So I am hopeful that we 
will get the support of our colleagues in this Congress so that we can 
study.
  While this is limited to the link between illegal aliens and gang 
membership, we need more studies on gangs, period. We need to find out, 
number one, where the young people are coming from. What is it about 
gang membership that entices them to want to be a part of that gang? 
What are their parents like? Are they the children of those who are 
already incarcerated? If we had an opportunity to support them getting 
back into school, moving out of neighborhoods, et cetera, what would 
happen?
  So, again, even though this is a little late in coming, I do support 
the amendment, and I ask for an aye vote.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank the 
gentlewoman. I hope this will be, and I think it should have bipartisan 
support, and I am going to call for a vote, because I believe most of 
us will vote for this.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the time, I would hope that the 
gentleman would also support the idea of a broader study on gangs, 
period, and that we could identify a number of areas to be looked at. 
Would the gentleman be interested in that at some point in time?
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, I am 
interested in doing anything I know we can do to stop gang violence in 
this country. It is time we brought it to an end, and of course, I am 
interested in anything about that that might head that off.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Having heard the distinguished views from my friend, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood), I

[[Page 9187]]

am convinced that the amendment is well taken, however misplaced in 
time. We should have considered this before the gentleman from Roanoke, 
Virginia, but as my colleague has said, better late than never.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood) will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 10 
printed in House report 109-76.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Waters

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

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Ms. Waters:
       Strike section 102.
       Strike section 103.
       Strike section 104.
       Strike section 105.
       Strike section 106.
       Strike section 107.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 268, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and I have offered an amendment that would strike 
all of the mandatory minimum sentences in H.R. 1279, the Gang 
Deterrence and Community Protection Act. The mandatory minimum 
sentencing requirements found in sections 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and 
107 are simply not the answer to gang deterrence.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us know that mandatory minimum sentencing has 
not worked, and it does have a huge disproportionate impact on 
minorities. Just to name a few statistics, African-Americans only 
comprise 12 percent of the United States population; however, they 
comprise a staggering 58 percent of all prisoners incarcerated under 
Federal mandatory minimum sentences. There is something wrong with this 
picture.
  Mandatory minimums are not even effective in deterring crime. Their 
only proven result is in driving up our prison populations, resulting 
in overcrowding and the need for the creation of more prisons. 
Increasing prison populations is not the solution to the prevention of 
crime in our communities, even communities infested with gang crime.
  Mr. Chairman, mandatory minimums also impede on the role of our 
judges. We need to let judges be judges and ensure that they have the 
discretion to sentence criminal defendants in a manner that takes into 
account all of the facts and circumstances that are presented before 
them. Clearly, this must include an evaluation of any mitigating 
circumstances, such as the defendant's childhood experience, especially 
if the defendant is a juvenile; the mental state of the defendant; the 
role that the defendant played in the commission of the crime; the 
mental capacity of the defendant; the crime committed; whether force or 
a firearm was used during the commission of the crime; and whether a 
victim lost his or her life and was seriously maimed as a result of the 
crime. The mandatory minimums under H.R. 1279 would make it impossible 
for trial judges to fairly and fully evaluate the cases before them, 
because these sections overreach into the State court's authority and 
remove the judge's sentencing discretion.
  Mr. Chairman, to be tough on gangs, we must focus more on gang crime 
prevention. We need to implement more effective prevention tactics that 
focus on both individuals at risk of joining gangs and on former gang 
members at risk of rejoining a gang after being released from prison. 
Also, educational and rehabilitation programs for communities with 
gangs that have a high crime rate need to be implemented. We should 
focus our attention on what works.
  I urge all of my colleagues to please support my amendment and to 
strike all of the mandatory minimum sentences included in H.R. 1279.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment would essentially strip the bill of vital and 
necessary weapons that prosecutors and law enforcement need to win the 
war against violent gangs. In particular, and I ask that everyone pay 
close attention to this, the amendment would eliminate increased 
penalties and mandatory minimum penalties for the following crimes: 
interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering, 
carjacking and illegal gun transfers to drug traffickers or violent 
criminals, murder for hire or other felony crimes of violence, violent 
crimes in aid of racketeering activity, murder or other violent crimes 
committed by drug traffickers and multiple interstate murderers.
  These people belong in jail. Just listen to the types of crimes that 
the mandatory minimums and enhanced penalties apply to.
  When considering this amendment, it is important to recognize just 
how much of a problem gangs represent today. Just take the City of 
Chicago. The U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald, 
testified and described the gang problem in Chicago: ``It is easy to 
underestimate the grip that gangs have on some of our cities, but the 
sad reality is that their grip on urban life is lethal. First, the 
sheer number of gang members is staggering. In Chicago alone, there are 
estimated to be 70,000 to 100,000 gang members, compared with about 
13,000 Chicago police officers. Several ``super gangs'' dominate: The 
Gangster Disciples, the Black Disciples, the Vice Lords, the Black P 
Stones, the Mickey Cobras, the Latin Kings, the Spanish Cobras, the 
Maniac Latin Disciples and the Satan Disciples. All of these gangs 
control large amounts of territory, engage in large-scale drug 
trafficking and use gun violence to control their territory and drug 
trade.''
  Unfortunately, my colleagues ignore the practical reality of this 
problem by trying to take away new and valuable tools for law 
enforcement and prosecutors such as mandatory minimum penalties.
  U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald again explained, ``It is important to 
maintain heavy penalties on gang members, particularly higher-echelon 
members and those engaging in violence, to deter violent activity and 
to leverage cooperation from gang members who are already conditioned 
to understand they will do some prison time but often cooperate when 
faced with heavier prison time. Cases against gangs proceed most 
effectively when the heavy penalties cause key members of the gang to 
work with authorities to dismantle the organization. Ultimately, severe 
sentencing of gang members results more quickly in greater freedom for 
the community victimized by the gangs.''
  Heavy penalties mean more cooperation to people on the fringes. 
Mandatory minimum penalties and heavier sentences result in more 
quickly and greater freedom for the community victimized by the gangs. 
This amendment is the anti-community freedom amendment and should be 
defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind Members of the

[[Page 9188]]

House that murders are already illegal. Intentional murder subjects you 
to either the death penalty or mandatory life. Racketeering and those 
other charges are illegal. The mandatory minimums in the bill apply to 
second-offense fist fights, and I guess if you are an illegal 
immigrant, you get an additional 5 years mandatory minimum.
  If that is not enough, Mr. Chairman, we have already said that, for 
those 25 to 29 in the African-American community, 1 out of 8 are 
already in jail today. Apparently, that is not enough penalty, and we 
need to increase it.
  The Sentencing Commission has studied the impact of mandatory minimum 
sentences and have found that they not only violate the entire purpose 
of the Sentencing Commission, but they are also applied in a racially 
discriminatory manner. We also have found, Mr. Chairman, that the Rand 
Corporation has studied mandatory minimums and found that it is not a 
cost-effective sentencing scheme. They found that compared to a more 
intelligent scheme where the more serious criminals get more time and 
less serious get less time, mandatory minimums are less effective in 
reducing crime. They are also much less effective than drug 
rehabilitation for drug penalties. So we have the Rand Corporation 
designating mandatory minimums as a waste of the taxpayers' money.
  The Judicial Conference of the United States, the Chief Justice of 
the United States presiding, has written us a letter saying, not only 
that trying juveniles as adults is bad policy but also the mandatory 
minimums, and they have maintained opposition to mandatory minimums 
since 1953. They write: The reason is manifest. Mandatory minimums 
severely distort and damage the Federal sentencing system. Mandatory 
minimums undermine the sentencing guideline regime Congress so 
carefully established in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 by 
preventing the rational development of guidelines that reduce unwanted 
disparity and provide proportionality and fairness.

                              {time}  1615

  Mandatory minimums also destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging 
charge and fact plea bargains. In fact, the U.S. Sentencing Commission 
has documented that mandatory minimums have the opposite of their 
intended effect. Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory 
minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity.
  Mandatory minimums also treat dissimilar offenders in a similar 
fashion, although these offenders can be quite different with respect 
to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger to society.
  Finally, mandatory minimums require the sentencing court to impose 
the same sentence on offenders when sound policy and common sense call 
for reasonable differences and punishment. Accordingly, we respectfully 
request that the expansion of the Federal criminal justice system over 
juvenile offenders be seriously reconsidered, and that the mandatory 
minimum sentences provision in the bill be removed.
  Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what this amendment does, and I would 
hope that the amendment would be adopted.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I just wish today that we would hear the 
same passion for the victims of gang crimes as we have heard on the 
other side for those who commit violent gang crimes. You know, we have 
heard a lot about the cost of locking up violent gang criminals. But I 
have not heard a whole lot about the cost of leaving them in our 
neighborhoods to create more crimes and leave repeated paths of 
victims.
  We just heard about common sense. Well, let me tell you about common 
sense. Common sense is that you are not going to stop these violent 
gang criminals by giving them a Popsicle and a hug. You stop them by 
getting them off the streets.
  Let us make it clear that we do not believe there is any socially 
redeeming value for belonging to a violent criminal gang. What 
mandatory sentences do is they set out clearly a policy that we say, if 
you are going to belong to one of these gangs, you take the 
consequences; that if you commit one of these gang crimes, you are 
going to pay a price. You cannot just roll the dice.
  Now, our opponents will tell you it is already illegal to do some of 
these acts. They miss the point. Our whole purpose is to keep those 
acts from being committed in the first place by getting rid of the gang 
networks. They believe, they have argued here the way you do that is by 
giving arts and crafts to members of these violent gangs. We just 
respectfully disagree.
  We believe that the way you do it is by bringing down the criminal 
gang networks and the criminal gang leaders. Mandatory sentences do 
that by giving those individuals who commit gang crimes a choice. They 
can either spend a long time in jail, or they can help us bring down 
the networks that are praying on our communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject this amendment and will pass the 
bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
bill, which offers no solution to our Nation's gang violence problem, 
and in support of the Waters-Scott amendment which strikes the 
mandatory sentences provisions.
  Clearly, in many neighborhoods throughout our country, we have a gang 
violence problem. Yet dramatically increasing prison terms and failing 
to fund proven strategies to reduce youth violence is exactly what H.R. 
1279 does.
  Violence in gangs is a critical problem, persistent among low-income 
and minority communities. Today we see that 95 percent of the largest 
cities and 88 percent of the smaller cities are confronted with gang-
related crimes. More and more younger kids are joining gangs. But no 
value of hope is given to these children seeking a way out of the gang 
activity. We must face this reality, rather than hide from it.
  It seems to me that the only solution being offered by this 
legislation to our juveniles involved in gangs is locking them into a 
life path where there is no way out. Whatever happened to gang 
prevention programs, to the funding desperately needed for delinquency 
and intervention programs?
  If we want to deter gang violence and protect our communities, we 
need to focus on effective and comprehensive solutions to address the 
root causes of youth violence, not simply punitive actions.
  Mr. Chairman, passing this bill will do nothing to stem the tide of 
gang violence throughout this country. What this bill will do is worsen 
our youth's violent behavior by enslaving our youngsters into prison as 
an answer to one of this Nation's most critical problems, and that is 
no solution at all. I urge my colleagues to support the Waters-Scott 
amendment and to oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I am a cop. I wear a congressional pin, 
but I always will live and breathe and think like a cop.
  I have worked the streets for 33 years. Up until January 3 of this 
year I was a police officer. In the early 1990s, gangs were a huge 
problem in this country; and we worked hard and passed local tough laws 
to address the gang issue. And we had success. The crackdown by cops 
across the Nation in the early 1990s did break the backs of gang 
activity. And today we need tough laws to continue fighting gang 
violence and the resurgence of gang activity.
  These gangs today are more violent. They are committing murders, 
rapes, and robberies. Cops need tough laws to help them. They need to 
know that local governments, State governments, and the Federal 
Government is behind them with tough laws to help them break the backs 
of gangs.
  A few years ago I lost a good friend, an officer who worked in the 
Seattle area. He stopped his police car, opened

[[Page 9189]]

his car door, stood by the front of his police car, and was approached 
by three gang members. The job that night, the assignment that night by 
these gang bangers, kill a cop. And they did. They fired the bullet 
into the cop's head, and he died.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and protect the 
lives of citizens of this great country.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a cop. I wear a Congressional pin, but I will 
always think like a cop, live and breathe as a cop.
  I have chased these gangs, I have worked to shut down these groups 
and these were not innocent children. I absolutely believe in 
protecting our children and giving them a chance, teaching them right 
from wrong and allowing them to make mistakes. I believe in doing that 
while they are young. We should be educating our children, teaching 
them responsibility and raising them to be better men and women than we 
are.
  But I believe once that foundation has been laid, they are 
responsible for their actions. It is a harsh world and I have seen it 
first hand. I have watched young women turn to prostitution. I have 
picked them up from their beats and taken them to shelters and tried to 
help them find a way out of that life. I've had success too. But 
ultimately, they are responsible for themselves and their choices. I am 
a compassionate man, but I firmly believe that respect stems from 
responsibility. And no one--not you, me, not any of these youths in 
gangs are without responsibility.
  The members of these gangs consciously choose to act out against 
their communities. They dispense the violence; no one forces them to do 
so. That type of influence is like a cancer. These gangs seep into 
young men and women and corrupt them. They erode the good of our 
neighborhoods and destroy lives. Our communities need to be safe. In 
order to be safe, we need to stop this cycle before it begins. 
Mandatory minimums enforce that gang members and their theft, 
prostitution, weapons and drugs will not be tolerated. They will be 
dealt with to the fullest extend of the law.
  In May of 2001, Des Moines patrol officer Steve Underwood was shot to 
death and killed after approaching a car with four gang members on a 
late-night watch along Pacific Highway South. Shot to death simply in 
approaching the car, this is what we have progressed to.
  Last night I spoke with King County's Gang Detective, Sheila Hatch. 
In the course of our conversation, she raised mandatory minimums. She 
said that the only way for our prosecutors to effectively go after gang 
leaders when the cops manage to bring them down is with a strong 
penalty. Our laws need to be effective to stop and make them think of 
consequence before they commit a crime. The cost of their crime sprees 
should not be simply an afterthought.
  Mr. Chairman, we need mandatory minimums. I am telling you that first 
hand, as someone who worked on the streets to stop gangs. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' against the Waters-Scott amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if you kill a police officer you 
are going to get death or life without parole. If you make any murder 
in the Federal system you are looking at life. If you are talking about 
the impact of this bill, it is a 10-year mandatory minimum for second-
offense fist fights.
  We have been asked where our compassion is for the victims. We have 
got mandatory minimums where you already know that it violates common 
sense, it wastes the taxpayers money, it fails to do anything about 
reducing crime. That is what the studies have shown. Trying juveniles 
as adults we know increases crime.
  That is a good question. Where is your compassion for the victims 
when you are actually increasing crime? We know what works to reduce 
crime. We know what polls well, and what we need to do is have some 
compassion for common sense and actually enact those provisions that 
will reduce crime.
  We know that prevention and early intervention work. You know, you 
can make jokes about it; but we know what works and we know what polls 
well. If we are going to show some compassion for our victims, we ought 
to do something to actually reduce crime.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for me to say on behalf of most 
of the Members, if not all of the Members of the Congress of the United 
States of America, we are all against crime. We do not support 
criminals. We are indeed passionate about victims. We want hard-core 
criminals off the streets.
  What we do not support is using this terrible issue to get your law 
and order credentials on. We do not want you using this issue on the 
backs of young people who may be victims of gangs rather than criminals 
themselves.
  Let me just say this: we are against mandatory minimum sentencing 
because it takes away the discretion of the judge. The judge may give 
more time, given all of the facts. And, yes, they may give less time, 
given all of the facts.
  We need to let judges be judges. We cannot sit here in the Congress 
of the United States and continue to take away the ability of judges to 
make decisions. So I stand here today with this amendment to say, let 
the judges make the decision.
  You do not know if there is a kid who happens to live in a 
neighborhood that is infested with gang members and they must pretend 
to be in the gang in order to survive. Do you want that kid caught up 
in a situation where they are going to be given mandatory minimum 
sentencing, when they did not have an opportunity to have a judge 
understand what the extenuating circumstances were?
  I do not think that is good legislating, nor is it good public 
policy. I would ask my colleagues to please support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) has expired.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) have any more time, because I wish to make a statement 
on this bill prior to the close of debate.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield one of those 
minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this. I am not going to 
allow my amendment to get caught up in the politics of the day. I know 
that there are people who are just salivating for this amendment to 
remain on the floor so they can catch Democrats voting for something 
that they will use in their campaigns.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Waters/Scott Amendment which strikes out all mandatory minimums in H.R. 
1279. The mandatory minimums proscribed in this legislation will only 
result in many young people serving long sentences, at least ten years, 
based on the circumstances of rather than the crime itself. Perhaps it 
is no surprise that mandatory minimums have come under criticism for 
being discriminatory in nature.
  The enormous monetary and human costs associated with incarceration 
simply outweigh the supposed benefits of the proposed legislation. It 
is well known that incarceration costs American taxpayers millions of 
dollars each year, what is not as widely known is that it also costs 
millions to reintegrate those released from prison back into society. 
Additionally, as suggested in the recent Booker decision, judges often 
refuse to hand down mandatory minimums if they feel that they are 
draconian. With the proposed changes, we may even see juries unwilling 
to convict an obviously guilty defendant if they know that doing so 
will result in ten years' imprisonment. Creating laws that are likely 
to go un-enforced will not foster faith in the criminal justice system 
or help take down gangs.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waters/Scott 
amendment to H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection 
Act of 2005. If the Waters/Scott amendment is defeated I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose the underlying bill because it broadens the 
definition of gangs and metes out even harsher punishments for offenses 
that already have very long sentences.
  Mr. Chairman, the Scott/Waters amendment strikes those sections of 
the bill which set mandatory minimum sentences. I agree with the 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, (NAACP) who 
propose that by increasing the number of crimes that have mandatory 
minimum sentences, and stiffening those sentences, the bill will 
exacerbate the already troubling and offensive racial disparities in 
the criminal justice system.

[[Page 9190]]

  According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, such ``sentences 
are bad regardless of the crime because they prevent judges from making 
distinctions between defendants and sentencing them according to their 
culpability. Instead, mandatory minimums impose one-size-fits-all 
sentencing, which guarantees injustices''
  In my district the US Virgin Islands we are in the midst of gang 
violence amongst our young males. Over the years, through various 
preventative programs within our law enforcement community and amongst 
private organizations, we have seen a difference in behavior within our 
teen population as it pertains to conflict resolution. Prevention is 
truly the best cure in this situation not inflexible mandatory minimum 
sentences
  I urge my colleagues to support the Waters/Scott amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Waters amendment. Terrorism is solved with intelligence, prevention not 
simple mandatory minimums.
  Since the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug users, 
the Federal Bureau of Prisons budget increased by more than 2,016 
percent, from two hundred twenty million dollars in 1986 to about four 
billion four hundred thirty seven million dollars in 2004.
  African Americans comprise 12 percent of the United States 
population, 15 percent of drug users, 17 percent of cocaine users, but 
33 percent of all Federal drug convictions and 57 percent of Federal 
cocaine convictions.
  In 1986, before the mandatory minimums for crack cocaine offenses 
became effective, the average Federal offense for African Americans was 
11 percent higher than whites. Following the implementation of 
mandatory drug sentencing laws, the average drug offense sentence for 
African Americans was 49 percent higher than whites.
  Largely as a result of mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, there 
are now more than 2,100,000 persons in prison and almost 70 percent of 
the people behind bars in America are persons of color. African 
Americans made up 40 percent of the Federal prison population in 
August, 2003, up from 31 percent in 1986 before Federal mandatory 
minimums were enacted.
  As a result of mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, particularly 
with respect to drug crimes, in 2001, the average Federal drug 
trafficking conviction was 72.7 months while the average Federal 
manslaughter sentence was 34.3 months the average assault sentence 37.7 
months, and the average sexual abuse sentence 65.2 months.
  In 1999, African Americans constituted 13 percent of drug users. In 
that same year, African Americans constituted 35 percent of drug 
arrests, 53 percent of drug convictions, and 58 percent of those in 
prison for drug Federal mandatory minimum sentences make African 
Americans more likely to be incarcerated and for longer periods than 
their white counterparts.
  In the year 2000, 84.7 percent of crack cocaine cases were brought 
against African Americans even though, in that year, African Americans 
comprised only about 26.6 percent of crack users. Only 5.6 percent of 
crack cases that year were brought against Caucasians even they 
constituted 64.4 percent of crack users.
  In the 20 years from 1981 to 2001, the sentenced portion of the 
Federal prison population grew from about 20,000 in 1981 to about 
115,000 prisoners. During that same period, the percentage of drug 
offenders in Federal prison grew from 25 percent to almost 60 percent. 
Mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes are the largest drivers of 
expanding prison populations.
  Due to harsh sentencing guidelines, such as the `three-strikes, 
you're out, provision', a disproportionate number of young black and 
Hispanic men are likely to be imprisoned for life under scenarios in 
which they are guilty of little more than a history of untreated 
addiction and several prior drug-related offenses . . . States will 
absorb the staggering cost of not only constructing additional prisons 
to accommodate increasing numbers of prisoners who will never be 
released but also warehousing them into old age.
  We all know and are stunned by the staggering statistic cited in the 
September 2002 issue of the journal Racial Issues in Higher Education, 
that, at that time, there were more African American males in prison 
than in college. Mandatory minimums are driving this growth in federal 
prison populations.
  Mandatory minimum drug sentences are also resulting in the 
disproportionate lengthy incarceration of young African American women. 
From 1986 (the year mandatory sentencing was enacted) to 1996, the 
number of women sentenced to state prison for drug crimes increased ten 
fold and has been the main element in the overall increase in the 
imprisonment of women. Ninety five percent of female arrests from 1985 
to 1996 were drug related and over 80% of female prison inmates are 
incarcerated as a result of their association with abusive boyfriends.
  Terrorism requires a more comprehensive approach along with major 
immigration reform not just mandatory minimums.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 7 offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), amendment No. 9 offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 266, 
noes 159, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               AYES--266

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder

[[Page 9191]]


     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--159

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Berkley
     Bishop (UT)
     Hastings (FL)
     Larson (CT)
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1649

  Messrs. SWEENEY, TIERNEY, CARNAHAN, UPTON, DOYLE and Mrs. MALONEY 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Messrs. CASE, BISHOP of New York, STRICKLAND and 
INGLIS of South Carolina changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Norwood

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 395, 
noes 31, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 166]

                               AYES--395

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--31

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Filner
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Holt
     Honda
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Solis
     Stark

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Berkley
     Hastings (FL)
     Larson (CT)
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1658

  Mr. PALLONE and Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1700

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). There being no further amendments, 
the question is on the

[[Page 9192]]

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Accordingly, under the rule, the Committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Rehberg) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, pursuant to House Resolution 268, he reported 
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Tierney

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

       Mr. Tierney moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1279 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 22, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 116. PROHIBITION OF PROFITEERING.

       (a) Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1037. War profiteering and fraud relating to military 
       action, relief, and reconstruction efforts in Iraq

       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever, in any matter involving a 
     contract or the provision of goods or services, directly or 
     indirectly, in connection with the war, military action, or 
     relief or reconstruction activities in Iraq, knowingly and 
     willfully--
       ``(A) executes or attempts to execute a scheme or artifice 
     to defraud the United States or Iraq;
       ``(B) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, 
     scheme, or device a material fact;
       ``(C) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
     statements or representations, or makes or uses any 
     materially false writing or document knowing the same to 
     contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
     statement or entry; or
       ``(D) materially overvalues any good or service with the 
     specific intent to excessively profit from the war, military 
     action, or relief or reconstruction activities in Iraq;

     shall be fined under paragraph (2), imprisoned not more than 
     20 years, or both.
       ``(2) Fine.--A person convicted of an offense under 
     paragraph (1) may be fined the greater of--
       ``(A) $1,000,000; or
       ``(B) if such person derives profits or other proceeds from 
     the offense, not more than twice the gross profits or other 
     proceeds.
       ``(b) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is 
     extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under 
     this section.
       ``(c) Venue.--A prosecution for an offense under this 
     section may be brought--
       ``(1) as authorized by chapter 211 of this title;
       ``(2) in any district where any act in furtherance of the 
     offense took place; or
       ``(3) in any district where any party to the contract or 
     provider of goods or services is located.''.
       (2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``1037. War profiteering and fraud relating to military action, relief, 
              and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.''.

       (b) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a)(2)(B) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 1030'' and 
     inserting ``1030, or 1037''.
       (c) Money Laundering.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting the following: 
     ``, section 1037 (relating to war profiteering and fraud 
     relating to military action, relief, and reconstruction 
     efforts in Iraq),'' after ``liquidating agent of financial 
     institution),''.

  Mr. TIERNEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit is simple and 
straightforward and deserves the support of every Member of this body. 
It would amend the criminal code to prohibit defrauding the government 
in connection with the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
  My motion would make it clear that these outrageous and unpatriotic 
activities would be subject to prison time and monetary penalties. 
Every single dollar that is wasted because of corporate fraud or abuse 
in Iraq is one less dollar that can go to protect our troops, one less 
dollar for body armor, one less dollar for protective equipment that 
can save lives.
  It is an unfortunate fact of life that, today, in Iraq, taxpayer 
funds are being routinely wasted by organized corporate criminals. The 
American taxpayer is being defrauded by a system of distributing funds 
that is totally unaccountable. This not only demeans and cheapens the 
sacrifices that our military and civilian personnel are making in Iraq, 
it endangers their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, just last week, the House spent another $82 billion of 
taxpayer funds on the war. The cost of the war had already been over 
$200 billion. We also learned this week that the Pentagon auditors 
found that $212 million was paid to Kuwaiti and Turkish subcontractors 
for fuel the Pentagon auditors concluded was exorbitantly priced. 
Halliburton passed these payments onto the taxpayer.
  That may be just the tip of the iceberg, as billions of dollars are 
being expended in Iraq with precious little accountability. While there 
are fraud statutes to protect against wasted tax dollars at home, none 
expressly prohibit war profiteering, and none expressly confer 
extraterritorial jurisdiction overseas, as my motion would do.
  Against this backdrop, it is imperative that this Congress send a 
strong signal that we will not tolerate taxpayer rip-offs at the 
expense of our troops. I offer this amendment now because this bill 
before us is open ended as a crime bill. It not only deals with gangs 
but it amends the criminal laws on matters concerning hearsay, venues, 
statute of limitations and sentencing. It also authorizes new grants 
and databases, among other things. If we are going to do all of this, 
it certainly is appropriate that we also amend the criminal laws to 
combat blatant contract fraud in Iraq to protect our brave troops.
  When concerns about wartime fraud were raised during World War II, 
President Roosevelt declared it was our duty to ensure that a few do 
not gain from the sacrifices of the many. Then, as now, our government 
cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for reconstruction 
efforts that allow so many others to unfairly profit.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this commonsense motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  I thought I had heard everything this morning, Mr. Speaker, when, in 
the debate, we heard the opponents of this bill say that they felt that 
they could fight violent gang crime better by using arts and crafts 
than they could by locking up violent criminals, but I am shocked now 
that they are even bringing in Iraq.
  If you look, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice, I am sure, is 
going to investigate the matters that are in this motion to recommit. 
There has not been a shred of evidence or testimony in any subcommittee 
or full committee about this bill related to anything in this motion to 
recommit. We have not heard a single discussion on it on the floor 
today. We have heard one poison

[[Page 9193]]

pill after another to try to stop us from going after violent criminal 
gangs. There have even been amendments to try to offer loans to gang 
members, to give housing to violent gang members.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time we stopped playing games with this bill and 
we pass it and go on to try to deal with these violent gangs. I want to 
remind the House that the Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association, 
the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Law Enforcement Alliance of 
America, National Troopers Coalition, Federal Criminal Investigators 
Association, California Gang Investigators Association, National Latino 
Peace Officers Association, the New Orleans District Attorney, the Los 
Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, and 63 chiefs of major police departments 
around the country support the bill as it is. I hope we will defeat the 
motion to recommit and pass H.R. 1279.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 227, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 167]

                               AYES--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 (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     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
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--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
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Berkley
     Hastings (FL)
     Larson (CT)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1725

  Mr. GILLMOR changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 279, 
nays 144, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 168]

                               YEAS--279

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hobson

[[Page 9194]]


     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Watson
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--144

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hensarling
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pitts
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berkley
     Evans
     Feeney
     Hastings (FL)
     Larson (CT)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1735

  Mr. SNYDER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________