Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my colleague, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that every single Member of this House is concerned about gang violence in our communities and throughout our country, and every single Member of this House is dedicated to trying to make our communities and our Nation safer. However, some of us want to pass not a press release but tough legislation that will indeed make our communities safer.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1279, the so-called Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act. It is bad policy wrapped in a bad bill that will simply not do the job the sponsors claim it will do.

Do not let the title of the bill fool Members. It has nothing to do with deterrence or community protection. This bill does nothing to address the causes of gang activity. Instead, its primary purposes include unjustifiable punishment and ineffective enforcement of the law.

The bill unjustifiably expands death penalty provisions, removes judicial discretion over transferring juveniles to the adult court system, and imposes ineffective mandatory minimum sentencing.

Mr. Speaker, Time magazine focused on the spike in gang activity in Los Angeles in the September 3, 2001, edition. In that story, Father Greg Boyle, a Catholic priest who worked in a

gang-infested area of East Los Angeles, said that California's anti- gang strategy, which has been copied across the country, ``is bankrupt. You have the three strikes law and jail and so on, but you can't terrify a kid into being hopeful about his future.''

The following quote is even more telling: ``We don't need new laws. We have a penal code a foot thick. You can't just work gangs with police suppression. You need prevention and intervention programs, too.'' Mr. Speaker, that statement was not made by a social worker or community activist. No, Mr. Speaker, it came from Sergeant Wes McBride, founder of the California Gang Investigators Association and a 28-year veteran of anti-gang policing.

After reading this legislation, it is clear to me that this bill will do nothing to deter gang activity and, instead, will sentence American youth to lives of crime and violence instead of proactively intervening in our communities to prevent our children and our youngsters from joining gangs in the first place.

This legislation contains several provisions that unjustifiably expand the Federal death penalty. Despite numerous studies that have documented both the exposure of innocent individuals to the death penalty system and its discriminatory nature, the proponents of this bill want to make this already-flawed system worse.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this clearly. I am opposed to the death penalty. I do not believe the death penalty deters future crimes. It has been proven that the death penalty unfairly targets minorities. It has also been proven that innocent people have been sent to death row and have been put to death. Inclusion of the death penalty in this bill is wrong and should be stripped out.

Since 1973, 119 innocent people have been released from Death Row. A study performed by the Criminal Justice Reform Education Fund reported that over two-thirds of all capital convictions and sentences between 1973 and 1995 were reversed because of serious error during trial or sentencing. How can we expand the death penalty system, especially to include juveniles, when it is proven to be faulty, discriminatory, and not an effective deterrent to violent behavior?

Let me remind my colleagues that President Bush signed the Justice for All Act into law on October 30, 2004. This law, which was approved overwhelmingly by this body, improved the fallibility of the death penalty system by making DNA technology available to our criminal justice system in order to improve its ability to exonerate the innocent, as well as identify and convict the guilty. However, the important provisions in the Justice For All Act that would improve the fallibility of the death penalty system are not even being funded. As if that were not bad enough, the bill before us today would actually create new death penalty provisions.

In effect, Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we are adding more death penalty cases to an already-broken system that is desperately in need of repair. By not funding the protections provided under the Justice for All Act and by expanding the death penalty to new cases, this bill makes the death penalty system worse, not better.

Another provision that I strongly disagree with is the transferring of juveniles to the adult court system. Research performed by the Department of Justice has shown that youths tried as adults are more likely to commit a greater number of crimes upon release and that these crimes will be violent. Youths sent to prison with adults end up victims of rape, assault and become high repeat offenders. When these prisoners are released and attempt to reenter society, what are their options? It is most likely they will pick up where they left off and contribute once again to the cycle of gangs and violence.

Moving a youth into the adult court system and prison system will not reduce the amount of youth crime and gang activity. If anything, it will make it worse.

Another flawed aspect of H.R. 1279 is its emphasis on mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentencing will not prevent youths from joining gang or reduce violent crime among youths. Mandatory minimums were originally created to decrease the disparity in sentencing of like offenders. However, the Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Sentencing Commission has found mandatory minimums ``require sentencing courts to impose the same sentence on offenders when sound policy and common sense call for reasonable differences in punishment.'' In other words, judges are prevented from assessing what type of punishment fits the crime.

Removing sentencing power from judges and shifting discretion to prosecutors will not prevent any youth from joining a gang, committing his first crime or becoming a repeat offender. In fact, this is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in January when it ruled to allow Federal judges to deviate from sentencing guidelines. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this bill's host of harsh mandatory sentences is directly in defiance of the Supreme Court ruling.

Mr. Speaker, we know that intervention programs work in the majority of cases. For the most violent and dangerous individuals, we already have laws on the books that address these actions. But we have a real chance through prevention and intervention programs to make a difference in the lives of these young people. Instead of expanding death penalty provisions and trying juveniles as adults, we need to address the problem of youth crime and violence through early intervention and treatment methods. Programs like Head Start and the Job Corps have proven to be an effective means of deterring crime.

Studies of Head Start demonstrate that $3 is saved for every $1 spent on the program by reducing the future cost of crime, remedial education and welfare. This is clearly more cost effective than spending $9 billion over the next 10 years for prison bed construction and inmate upkeep, which happens to be the cost impact of H.R. 1279 estimated by the Sentencing Commission.

Job Corps programs deter crime by guiding at-risk youths and adults to getting a job or full-time study. About 75 percent of Job Corps participants move on to a full-time job or study and are one-third less likely to be arrested than nonparticipants. This approach makes sense as a crime deterrent, and it is also economically beneficial.

Youth crime and gangs are an issue in many cities around the country. In my home city of Worcester, Massachusetts, I helped coordinate a community-wide forum this past fall to address the issue of gang violence. Local police, city government officials, the district attorney, the sheriff's office, and hundreds of individuals were among the attendees. Also participating in this event was the Boston Ten Point Coalition, a nationally recognized leadership foundation whose mission is to reach out to at-risk youth and gang members in hopes of reducing violence in the community.

One particular item the Coalition discussed was the Adopt-A-Gang program, in which city churches keep their doors open and serve as a support center for troubled youth. The churches work with local law enforcement to communicate messages of nonviolence and zero tolerance for crime to these youths. And I am happy to say that the churches of the city of Worcester, along with the city government, the police department and local businesses are currently working with the Coalition to implement this program.

Hands-on, coordinated efforts like the Adopt-A-Gang program are how youth crime can be deterred, not through codification of a so-called gang-buster bill like H.R. 1279. Early prevention programs like Head Start reduce crime; expansion of death penalty provisions will not. Recruitment efforts by Job Corps deter gangs; prosecuting young people as adults will not. Collaborative interventions like Adopt-A-Gang program protect our community; mandatory minimum sentencing will not.

Mr. Speaker, none of the provisions in this bill have proven to be effective ways of dealing with gangs and violent youth behavior. Instead of taking a comprehensive approach to the problem, H.R. 1279's ``punishment first, prevention last'' methodology does not dedicate any efforts toward early intervention, education or rehabilitation.

Ask any cop. Aggressive policing alone will never break the cycle of

gang violence. However, one of the things this bill also does not address is the shortage of police officers across the country. The Federal Government is cutting the COPS program. Local communities all across this country are laying off police officers at a time when we should be increasing the number of police who are on our streets. Intervention and preventive programs like Head Start, Job Corps and the Ten Point Coalition are crucial to any hopes of deterring gangs.

Mr. Speaker, for the past decade, this House has worked in a bipartisan manner to effectively draft and pass comprehensive juvenile justice legislation. This bill is a sharp break with that tradition. Getting tough should mean passing legislation that works, not just passing legislation that sounds tough.

Mr. Speaker, finally, let me just say that 16 Democratic amendments were not made in order by the Committee on Rules last night. Why? I have no idea. According to our schedule, we are going to be done today by around 4 p.m. Surely it is not because we do not have the time to be able to debate some of these important amendments.

This is the kind of legislation where people from different communities, from urban areas and from rural areas who are dealing with this issue of gang violence have important ideas. They brought them forward in the Committee on Rules last night. Yet, last night, the Committee on Rules said to 16 Democrats that you will be shut out of this debate. I do not think that is the way we should be discussing a bill like this.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1279 and oppose the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my colleague by saying that all the groups he has mentioned, and so many more, also support the COPS program, too, which the President has cut by $40 million. We can talk all we want about using all this harsh rhetoric, but the bottom line is, there are laws already on the books if you commit a violent crime in this country. Right now, if you commit a murder, you will go to jail.

One of the things that is most troubling to me as we talk about how we make our communities safer, there is no talk about the fact that we are cutting funds for our local police departments. We need more police on the streets. That is not the only answer here, but clearly, the answer is not cutting the COPS program, which the Republican majority in this House is doing, and the President has suggested in his budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I always enjoy listening to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). He mentions that a handful of Democratic amendments were made in order, and I guess we all should be grateful on this side of the aisle because usually we get shut out totally. But the fact of the matter is 16 Democratic amendments were not made in order. Sixteen amendments have been shut out from this debate. If this issue was so important, and it is important, then why can we not take the time to debate all the various ideas? As I said, according to the schedule, we may be out of here at 4 o'clock today. I am willing to stay until 5, or even until 6 or even until 7 to give these other people an opportunity to have their concerns voiced on this floor.

We all represent communities, unfortunately, that have been touched by gang violence. All of us have dealt with community leaders, with our local police, in trying to figure out how best to deal with this violence. We all have good ideas. I think, especially on an issue like this, as many people who have these ideas should be able to bring them to the floor and to be able to debate them. But, unfortunately, 16 amendments have been totally blocked from consideration on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Washington just said that our local law enforcement would appreciate the support of the Federal Government.

I could not agree with him more. Then why are we cutting community policing programs? I mean it does not make any sense to me. And why did the Committee on Rules last night deny the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) and the gentleman from

New York (Mr. Weiner) the right to offer an amendment that reauthorizes the Community Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program for fiscal year 2006, 2008? That was denied. We could have had a vote on the floor today on that amendment and a full debate, and that was denied in the Committee on Rules.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) had an amendment that would require that the purchase of firearms, ammunition and explosives to be made in person and to require records to be kept on how the purchases were made. The reason why this is an important amendment because more and more we find out that gangs are purchasing weapons over the internet. Yet that was not even made in order. I know the gun lobby does not like that amendment, but even so, if we want to make sure that gang members have a more difficult time getting access to firearms, we certainly should have debated that amendment.

The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) had an amendment that would make it illegal to transfer a firearm to any individual that the Federal Government has designated as a suspected or known gang member or terrorist. I am trying to find where the controversy is with that amendment. Yet the Committee on Rules would not allow that amendment to be made in order on the floor today.

The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) had an amendment that strikes the section of the bill that allows the Attorney General to charge as adults those juveniles who commit violent crimes and are at least 16 years old. We can disagree on whether or not juveniles should be tried as adults, but, nonetheless, it is an important enough issue that we should have debated it on the floor here today and let Members decide that. And yet that was not made in order.

The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) had an amendment that establishes funding for prevention and intervention programs for the suppression of youth and gang violence. That was deemed to not be made in order.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) had an amendment that authorizes the expansion and the enhancement of law enforcement and community-based prevention and intervention programs targeting criminal street gangs, gang members and at-risk youth. That was ruled out of order by the Committee on Rules. I mean, I can go on and on and on. There are really good ideas here, and yet, for whatever reason, the Committee on Rules last night said they are not going to have their day on the House floor. And I do not understand why, and nobody who has spoken on the other side has explained to me why those amendments were not made in order, not even the Chairman of the Committee on Rules. We have the time. This is an important issue. These amendments should have been made in order. And, quite frankly, I think it is a disgrace and does a great disservice to a lot of people in this country who care about this issue that these Members were denied their right to offer these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What shocks me is that we have people who get up and talk about the importance of supporting our local law enforcement officials, and at the same time, we are supporting budgets that cut money to our local law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the National Council of La Raza opposing this bill. I also include for the Record a statement that has been signed by the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the Children's Defense Fund, the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Urban League, Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops, all in opposition to this legislation. I also include for the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter that has been signed by the President of Catholic Charities USA, also opposed to this legislation. And I include for the Record, so that it is there, the 16 amendments that the majority of the Committee on Rules decided to not make in order today on this important legislation.

National Council of La Raza,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2005.

Re Oppose provisions in the ``gang buster bill'' H.R. 1279

that prosecute youth as adults and impose mandatory

minimum sentences.

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the National Council

of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Latino civil rights

organization in the U.S., I urge you to oppose provisions

contained in the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection

Act of 2005'' (H.R. 1279) which is on the suspension calendar

this week. Please be advised that NCLR will recommend that

votes relevant to the Latino community and final passage of

the bill be included in the National Hispanic Leadership

Agenda Congressional Scorecard.

The Latino community is directly affected by gang violence,

consequently NCLR is committed to finding a solution to

combat it; however, the approach in H.R. 1279 is ineffective,

irresponsible and simplistic, given that it does nothing to

get to the root causes of the problem, and it further

exacerbate youth violent behavior. H.R. 1279 will if enacted

into law, would have a disparate impact on Latino youth and

their families. This bill would undermine overa11 public

safety, given that it imposes excessively severe measures

aimed at only punishing and not reforming youth violent

behavior. Specifically, NCLR strongly opposes two

provisions--the prosecution and transfer of youth into the

adult system and the inclusion of various mandatory minimum

sentences for a broad category of offenses that are labeled

``gang crimes'' and numerous other offenses.

Section 115 of the bill allows for the prosecution and

transfer of youth into the adult system. The latest research

shows that transferring youth to adult status is a failed

public policy approach, resulting in the opposite of what

this bill is purporting to do. It will increase--not

decrease--youth violence. The research shows that young

people prosecuted as adults, compared to those prosecuted as

juveniles, are more likely to: (a) commit a greater number of

crimes upon release; (b) commit more violent crimes upon

release; and (c) commit crimes sooner upon release. The

research also shows that youth held in adult facilities,

compared to youth held in juvenile facilities, are five times

as likely to be sexually assaulted by other inmates, twice as

likely to be beaten by staff, 50% more likely to be assaulted

with a weapon, and eight times as likely to commit suicide.

With these kinds of risks, it does not make sense for the

House to pursue legislation that includes the power to

prosecute juveniles as adults in federal court for activities

that the states are already well-equipped--indeed, better-

equipped--to handle than the federal system. Also, putting

the transfer decision at the sole discretion of a prosecutor,

not a judge as the law currently requires, violates the most

basic principles of due process and fairness.

Section 103 of the bill includes and expands mandatory

minimum sentences for a broad category of offenses that are

deemed ``gang crime.'' Under this bill, the mandatory minimum

sentences for these crimes range: from 5 to 30 years.

Although the offenses are serious and individuals who are

convicted should be properly held accountable, mandatory

sentences often prevent judges from determining the

appropriate punishment. When judges are restricted by

mandatory sentences, they cannot assess an individua1s

culpability during the crime or other factors that have

bearing on recidivism, thus resulting in inappropriate

sentences.

Although mandatory minimums were intended to reduce the

racial disparities that were associated with indeterminate

sentencing, in practice they exacerbate and mask such

disparities by shifting discretion from the judge to the

prosecutor. Prosecutors retain the power to plea bargain by

offering defendants plea agreements that avoid the mandatory

penalty. Studies have shown that this discretion results in a

disparity in sentencing outcomes based largely on race and

quality of defense attorney. According to testimony from the

U.S. Sentencing Commission, in 1999, 39% of those receiving

mandatory sentences were Hispanic, 38% were African American,

and 23% were White. Hipanics comprised 44% of those subject

to five-year mandatory sentences in 1999, 37% of the ten-year

mandatory sentences, 20% of the 20-year mandatory sentences,

and 8% of the mandatory life sentences. The reality for

African American defendants is even bleaker.

NCLR respectfully asks you to oppose legislation that

prosecutes and transfers youth into the adult system and that

includes and expands mandatory minimum sentences. These

provisions will only exacerbate youth violent behavior, at a

time when data from the FBI's Uniform Crime reporting program

that breaks down the age of people arrested for serious

offenses in 2003 showed that the number of people under 18

arrested declined by 30%. Instead, NCLR calls for a

comprehensive research--based approach that gets at the root

causes of youth violence--which includes but is not limited

to prevention, treatment, and effective alternatives to

incarceration. If you have any questions please contact

Angela Arboleda, NCLR Civil Rights Policy Analyst, at (202)

776-1789.

Sincerely,

Janet Murguia,

President and CEO.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Capuano-Weiner amendment on the COPS program. This amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules last night but was defeated on a straight party-line vote. This amendment will reauthorize the Community Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program, for the next 3 years. The COPS program, created as a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, focuses on crime prevention at the local level. This program puts law enforcement professionals on the streets and assigns them a beat so they can build mutually beneficial relationships with the people that they serve. By earning the trust of members of their community and making those individuals invest in their own safety, community policing makes law enforcement more efficient and makes America safer.

Mr. Speaker, if we are really serious about stopping the growing gang problem that is occurring in this country, we need to start at the local level, and we need to include prevention as well as enforcement. I know of no better program to meet this worthy goal than the COPS program.

Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of the gang deterrence bill and it will not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to add this important amendment that is one of our most effective tools in the war against violence.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, if we are truly interested in dealing with the gang problem in this country, we need to do more than pass legislation that sounds tough. We need to have legislation that is tough, that will do the job. We need to do more than a press release here.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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 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.

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.

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.

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).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

Madam Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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).

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman, how does the modification change the original manager's amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to seek the time in opposition although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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. 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.

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. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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 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.

Mr. Chairman, I want to remind Members of the 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.

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. 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.

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.

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the principal author of this bill, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

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.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

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 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).

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).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified by the form that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This is also a very good amendment. I would hope everybody would support it.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This also is a very good amendment. I would hope that the Committee would unanimously approve it.

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.

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. 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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield one of those minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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.

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 Gentlemen 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.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 268 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, and now printed in the bill, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and it makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution.

It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

It waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to get tough on gang activity. If we can get tough on drugs and if we can get tough on identity theft, terrorism, child abduction, we can get tough on gangs by creating the tools to put gang members behind bars and get them off the streets.

Gang activity is a real problem, a continuously growing problem. All cities with a population of more than 250,000 people have reported gang activity. Best estimates indicate that there are at least 750,000 gang members in the United States. They represent the ills of our society with links to drug trade, human trafficking, identity theft, assault and murder. Gang members continue to break our laws, reject rehabilitation efforts, and they are branching out beyond our cities into suburban and, yes, even rural, communities.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot solve our problems by simply throwing around money, nor can we simply categorize gang activity as isolated incidents. We cannot eliminate gangs by prosecuting incident by incident. We need to enforce our laws in language gang members can understand: you do the crime; you do the time.

With the support of the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Police Officers and many other, more specialized, law enforcement organizations, H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005, will make the necessary changes to prosecute gang criminals.

The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act designates high- intensity gang areas, and it authorizes funds to combat their illegal activity for special State and Federal enforcement task forces. It authorizes $20 million per year over 5 years to help States hire prosecutors, purchase technology, purchase equipment, and train law enforcement.

Most importantly, it increases penalties to deter violent gang crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault. The penalties include death or life imprisonment for murder, 30 years for kidnapping or rape, and 20 years for assault. In addition, this legislation includes juvenile justice reform to ensure that adult crimes, with adult motives, are prosecuted with adult penalties.

The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act would give the Attorney General discretion on whether or not to try a juvenile in Federal court as an adult if they are 16 or 17 years old. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, this legislation does not and will not apply adult standards to anyone younger than 16.

According to the Department of Justice ``Homicide Trends Report,'' between 1976 and 2002 one out of every three murders were committed by a juvenile for gang-related reasons. That means 16- and 17-year-olds are making adult, criminal decisions that equal tragedy for our neighbors and our friends.

More than half the States have enacted laws that mandate the prosecution of juveniles as adults for certain violent crimes, most notably murder. My own State of Georgia has laws that give prosecutors discretion on whether to treat juveniles as adults involving violent and repeat offenses.

Children by the legal definition making adult criminal decisions affect everyone. We need to pass strong anti-gang laws to help prevent troubled teenagers from becoming violent gang members.

As gangs spread and grow, we are seeing more drug activity. These are not simply high schoolers caught with marijuana. We are seeing gangs produce and trade dangerous drugs such as methamphetamine and cocaine. For example, in February, the Atlanta police, United States Drug Enforcement, the MCS Drug Task Force and other law enforcement agencies discovered Georgia's first ``superlab'' in my district, in Smyrna, Georgia, the 11th. With 39 pounds of meth crystal and 250 gallons of the drug in liquid form, one mistake could have destroyed an entire neighborhood.

By strengthening laws against gangs, we are helping fight the supply side of our war against drugs. Gangs are not just a city threat when they jeopardize suburban neighborhoods.

Mr. Speaker, gang activity is as important to the war on crime today as the battles against organized crime in the 1960s and 1970s. This legislation goes beyond national gangs like the Bloods and the Crips and would actually make progress in breaking down membership before these smaller gangs expand into a national nightmare.

Like our war against terrorism, our law enforcement on the State, local, and national levels need to communicate, to share intelligence, and to share resources. We need stronger sentencing to deter crime, and we need to identify potential hot spots before they become major problems.

With passage of the rule, and the underlying bill, we will have the power to take back our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to clarify and to remind my colleagues on the other side, who are suggesting we should be adding more social programs to this legislation, that this is not a social programs bill. It is a law enforcement bill. If they would like to work with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to craft a bill that would authorize arts and craft classes for gang members, certainly they can do that.

I would also like to mention that we currently have spent over the past 4 years, 2001 to 2004, over $2.1 billion on juvenile social programs aimed at prevention. And even with $2.1 billion, we have continued to see this dramatic rise in gang violence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the distinguished author of the bill and member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Virginia who just spoke is a brilliant lawyer, and I know he is not missing any points; but I want to say it is very important that the rest of our colleagues understand, we know that all of these crimes mentioned here today are illegal. But the point is, this bill addresses the dismantling of the systems that support gangs, and I think it is very important that we keep that in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), 8 years King County sheriff and 30 years as a police officer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the bill's author.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we bring debate on this rule to a close, I must stress the importance of strengthening our communities' efforts against gang crime. Like other forms of organized crime, gangs are at the center of drug violence, identity theft, bank robberies and many of the deadly shootings we read about in the local papers. We need to act in one strong voice to indicate that our laws have a purpose, that our prosecutors and law enforcement officers mean business. Gangs are a national problem, and they will not go away by simply putting them into an arts and crafts program or opening up a gymnasium to let them play midnight basketball. We can prevent the formation of gangs by strengthening our families, and we can deter their crimes by breaking their organization and putting them in jail. Gangs are no longer simply found in the largest cities but have made their way into our rural and suburban communities as well.

Gangs are a problem which need a resolution because the cost is in human lives. One of the more important aspects of the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act is mandatory minimum sentencing. With mandatory sentencing, law enforcement will gain leverage over the lower-level gang members, leverage that will put pressure on a gang member to ``roll over'' on their leadership. With cooperation comes the ability to take down an entire gang network, which is the desired effect of this legislation. If there is no threat of doing hard time, there is no incentive to cooperate with law enforcement investigators. In fact, minimal sentencing of much shorter time is often viewed by low-level 16- and 17-year-old gang members as a badge of honor, so- called ``earning your bones.'' They come out of prison in 6 months to 2 years and move up the gang chain of command. Plain and simple, mandatory minimum penalties are an important piece in protecting the public from violent gangs by taking down the system that supports them.

Mr. Speaker, mandatory sentencing, this is not a new concept. In fact, the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2002 contained 20-year mandatory minimums for child abductions and earned the support of 178 Democrats at final passage. Mandatory minimum sentences were part of the 2003 PROTECT Act, which passed this body by a vote of 400 to 25. The Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act contained mandatory minimum sentences, and it passed on suspension. An amendment to the intelligence bill that contained mandatory minimum sentencing to assure appropriate penalties for serious offenses such as possession of atomic, biological and chemical weapons passed 385 to 30. Mandatory minimum sentencing has been widely supported by this House and I believe works to deter crime. Getting tough on crime requires tough and uniform enforcement. We cannot afford to relent in our efforts to deter gang crime and enforce our laws. We need to address this problem while we have the opportunity and before it grows further out of control. We need to invest in new technology, unify our intelligence and strengthen our sentencing so law enforcement will have the tools to get gangs off the street.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and passage of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.