Justice for Peace Officers Act

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4472) to protect children, to secure the safety of judges,

prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and their family members, to reduce and prevent gang violence, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4472, currently under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act. This legislation contains bipartisan, comprehensive proposals to better protect our children from convicted sex offenders, to enhance judicial security, and to combat violent criminal gangs that terrorize our communities. Last year, the full House overwhelmingly approved three separate bills tailored to address these critical issues.

H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005, passed the House on September 14 of last year by a vote of 371-52. H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Courthouse Protection Act, was approved by the House on November 9, 2005, by a vote of 375-45, and H.R. 1279, the Gang Prevention and Deterrence Act, passed the House on May 11, 2005, by a vote of 279-144. H.R. 4472 incorporates core provisions of each bill with some modifications and additions.

Last year our Nation was horrified by news of the sexual assault and kidnapping of Dylan and Shasta Groehne and the brutal murder of their parents and siblings. These heinous acts occurred after 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford was abducted, raped and buried alive, and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde was murdered. All of these terrible crimes were committed by convicted sex offenders.

While these tragedies received the public attention and outrage they demanded, sexual predators continue to exploit current loopholes in our criminal justice system to prey on America's most vulnerable. H.R. 4472 protects America's children by making it much harder for them to do so.

When child sex offenders are brought to justice and serve time for their offenses, they are often released into unsuspecting communities to resume their sexual attacks. There are over 550,000 convicted sex offenders in the country, and it is conservatively estimated that at least 100,000 of them, 100,000, are lost in the system, meaning that nonregistered sex offenders are living in our communities, attending schools and working at locations where they can prey on our children.

The threat to our children grows each day as more unregistered sex offenders move freely within our midst. This bill reduces these unconscionable vulnerabilities by strengthening sex offender notification requirements.

The bill also addresses the problem of violence in and around our courthouses against judges, prosecutors, witnesses, law enforcement and other court personnel, as well as their immediate families. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Federal judges receive nearly 700 threats a year, and several Federal judges require security personnel to protect them and their families from violent gangs, drug organizations and disgruntled litigants. Judges, witnesses, and courthouse personnel and law enforcement officers must operate without fear in order to enforce and administer the law without bias.

Finally, the bill includes relevant provisions to address the growing national threat from violent and vicious gangs in our communities. According to the last National Youth Gang Survey, it is estimated that 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. In recent years gangs have become organized criminal syndicates with structured associations, many of which are now international in scope. State and local law enforcement have sent us a clear message: update and strengthen America's laws to combat the scourge of violence in our communities.

H.R. 4472 is strongly supported by John Walsh of America's Most Wanted, the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and other victims and representatives of victims organizations, as well as law enforcement agencies around the country.

These tireless advocates for America's children have provided vital assistance in crafting this measure, and their calls for justice for America's children must no longer go unanswered. We must act now to ensure that the tragedy of perverse and sexual attacks on America's children is not compounded by the tragedy of congressional inaction to strengthen our laws to address this national epidemic.

I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan differences and to speak in a clear and united voice to protect our children, to ensure a safe judiciary, and to give America's law-abiding citizens the right to live free from gang violence.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, this is not giving a pill to a dog. What this legislation does is it combines three bills that the House already debated and passed but which got stalled in the other body. What it does is it takes away the poison pills that have caused the essential legislation to be stalled in the other body. And it makes some amendments, some of which have been requested by people on the other side of the aisle such as getting rid of a certain number of mandatory minimum penalties.

The purpose of this exercise is to get legislation signed into law and it is important legislation on protecting children from pedophiles, protecting Americans from gangs, and protecting judges from kooks who want to try to do them and their families harm. That is why this procedure is being used today so that we can make a law.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my Democratic friend from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

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

Mr. Speaker, I include at this point in the Record a section-by- section analysis of H.R. 4472.

H.R. 4472--The Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of

2005

Sec. 101. Short Title. Short Title; Table of Contents, Sec.

102. Declaration of Purpose.

Sec. 111. This section sets forth the definitions for Title

I of the Act.

Sec. 112. This section requires each jurisdiction to

maintain a jurisdiction-wide sex offender registry conforming

to the requirements of this title and authorizes the Attorney

General to prescribe guidelines to carry out the purposes of

the title.

Sec. 113. This section requires a sex offender to register,

and maintain current information in each jurisdiction where

the sex offender was convicted, where the sex offender

resides, where the sex offender is employed and where the sex

offender attends school.

Sec. 114. This section specifies, at a minimum, what

information the registry must include.

Sec. 115. This section specifies the duration of the

registration requirement.

Sec. 116. This section requires a sex offender to appear in

person for verification of registration information.

Sec. 117. This section requires a jurisdiction official to

inform the sex offender of the registration requirements.

Sec. 118. This section establishes the Jessica Lunsford

Verification Program which requires State officials to verify

the residence of each registered sex offender.

Sec. 119. This section requires the Attorney General to

maintain a National Sex Offender Registry.

Sec. 120. This section creates the Dru Sjodin National Sex

Offender Public Website.

Sec. 121. This section requires each jurisdiction to make

available to the public through an Internet site certain

information about a sex offender.

Sec. 122. This section requires an appropriate official to

notify, within 5 days of a change in a sex offender's

information certain agencies.

Sec. 123. This section requires an appropriate official

from the State or other jurisdiction to notify the Attorney

General and appropriate State and local law enforcement

agencies to inform them of any failure by a sex offender to

comply with the registry requirements.

Sec. 124. This section provides that law enforcement

agencies, employees of law enforcement agencies, contractors

acting at the direction of law enforcement agencies, and

officials from State and other jurisdictions shall not be

held criminally or civilly liable for carrying out a duty in

good faith.

Sec. 125. This section requires the Attorney General to

develop software and make it available to States and

jurisdictions to establish, maintain, publish and share sex

offender registries.

Sec. 126. If the Attorney General determines that a

jurisdiction does not have a minimally sufficient sex

offender registry program, he is required to the extent

practicable, to carry out the obligations of the registry

program.

Sec. 127. This section requires jurisdictions to comply

with the requirements of this title within 2 years of

enactment.

Sec. 128. This section imposes a ten percent reduction in

Byrne Grant funds to any jurisdiction that fails, as

determined by the Attorney General, substantially to comply

with the requirements of this Act.

Sec. 129. This section authorizes the Sex Offender

Management Assistance Program to fund grants to jurisdictions

to implement the sex offender registry requirements.

Sec. 130. This section authorizes the Attorney General to

create a demonstration project for the electronic monitoring

of registered sex offenders.

Sec. 131. This section authorizes the Attorney General to

award grants to states that substantially implement

electronic monitoring programs for life for certain dangerous

sex offenders and for the period of court supervision for any

other case.

Sec. 132. This section provides NCMEC with access to

Interstate Identification Index data.

Sec. 133. This section provides NCMEC with limited immunity

related to its CyberTipline.

Sec. 134. This section requires that the Bureau of Prisons

make available appropriate treatment to sex offenders who are

in need of and suitable for treatment.

Sec. 135. This section requires the GAO to conduct a study

to determine the feasibility of using driver's license

registration processes as additional registration

requirements for sex offenders.

Sec. 136. This section requires the Attorney General to

provide technical assistance to jurisdictions to assist them

in the identification and location of sex offenders relocated

as a result of a major disaster.

Sec. 137. For the purposes of this Act, the term

``federally recognized Indian tribe'' does not include

within its purview Alaska Native groups or entities. In

1884 when Congress created the first civil government for

Alaska it decided that Alaska Natives should be subject at

all locations in Alaska to the same civil and criminal

jurisdiction as that to which all non-Native residents of

Alaska are subject. Alaska Natives today are subject at

all locations in Alaska, including in communities that are

``Native villages'' for the purposes of the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act, to the criminal statutes of the

Alaska State Legislature and are prosecuted in the Alaska

State courts for violations of those statutes. For that

reason, like all other sex offenders who are physically

present within the State of Alaska, Alaska Native sex

offenders, including offenders who reside in ``Native

villages'', are required by Alaska Statute 12.63.010 et

seq. to register as sex offenders with the Alaska

Departments of Corrections or Public Safety or with an

Alaska municipal police department, as appropriate.

Sec. 138. This section authorizes the Justice Department,

in consultation with the Secretary of State and the

Department of Homeland Security, to establish procedures to

notify relevant jurisdictions about persons entering the

United States who are required to register.

Sec. 139. This section requires the Justice Department to

study risk-based classification systems and report back to

Congress within 18 months of enactment.

Sec. 140. This section requires the Justice Department to

study the effectiveness of restrictions on recidivism rates

for sex offenders and to report back to Congress within 6

months of enactment on this issue.

Sec. 151. This section creates a new federal crime for a

Federal sex offender or offender crosses State lines.

Sec. 152. This section authorizes the Attorney General to

assist in the apprehension of sex offenders who have failed

to comply with applicable registration requirements.

Sec. 153. This section authorizes funding of such sums as

necessary for the Attorney General to provide grants to

States and other jurisdictions to apprehend sex offenders for

failure to comply.

Sec. 154. This section creates an enhanced criminal penalty

for use of a controlled substance against a victim to

facilitate the commission of a sex offense; and a new

criminal offense prohibiting Internet sales of certain

``date-rape'' drugs.

Sec. 155. This section repeals the predecessor sex offender

registry program.

Sec. 156. This section authorizes grants to train and

employ personnel to help investigate and prosecute cases

cleared through use of funds provided for DNA backlog

elimination.

Sec. 157. This section authorizes grants to law enforcement

agencies to help combat sexual abuse of children, including

additional personnel and related staff, computer hardware and

software necessary to investigate such crimes, and

apprehension of sex offenders who violate registry

requirements.

Sec. 158. This section requires the Justice Department to

expand training efforts coordination among participating

agencies to combat on-line solicitation of children by sex

offenders.

Sec. 159. This section amends the probation and supervised

release provisions to mandate revocation when a offender

commits a crime of violence or an offense to facilitate

sexual contact involving a person under 18 years old.

Sec. 161. This section establishes an Office on Sexual

Violence and Crimes Against Children.

Sec. 162. This section provides for Presidential

appointment of a Director of the Office.

Sec. 163. This section states the purpose is to administer

the sex offender registration and notification program;

administer grant programs; and to provide technical

assistance, coordination and support to other governmental

and nongovernmental entities.

Sec. 201. This section amends the DNA Analysis Backlog

Elimination Act to make a correction to ensure collection and

use of DNA profiles from convicted offenders.

Sec. 202. This section directs the Attorney General to give

appropriate consideration to the need for collection and

testing of DNA to stop violent predators against children.

Sec. 203. This section directs the GAO to conduct a study

two years after the publication of the model code on the

extent to which States have implemented.

Sec. 301. This section modifies the existing statute

and adopts new penalties for felony crimes of violence

crimes committed against children.

Sec. 302. This section restricts federal habeas review of

collateral sentencing claims relating to a state conviction.

Sec. 303. This section establishes victim rights

requirements for habeas corpus proceedings.

Sec. 304. This section requires the Attorney General to

study the implementation for a nationwide tracking system for

persons charged or investigated for child abuse.

Sec. 401. This section modifies the criminal penalties for

several existing sexual offenses

against children by amending the current law.

Sec. 402. This section expresses a sense of Congress with

respect to reversal of criminal conviction of Jan P. Helder,

Jr.

Sec. 403. This section authorizes a new grant program for

child sex abuse prevention programs, and authorizes $10

million for fiscal years 2007 to 2011.

Sec. 501. This section amends the Social Security Act to

require each State to complete background checks and abuse

registries relating to any foster parent or adoptive parent

application, before approval of such an application, and

provides access to agencies responsible for foster parent of

adoptive parent placements.

Sec. 502. This section authorizes the Attorney General to

provide fingerprint-based background checks to child welfare

agencies, private and public educational agencies, and

volunteers in order to conduct background checks for

prospective adoption or foster parents, private and public

teachers or school employees.

Sec. 503. This section amends section 2422(a) and (b) of

title 18, United States Code, to increase penalties for

coercion and enticement.

Sec. 504. This section increases mandatory-minimum

penalties for conduct relating to child prostitution ranging

from a mandatory minimum of 10 years to a mandatory minimum

of 30 years depending on the severity of the conduct.

Sec. 505. This section amends several statutes relating to

sexual abuse.

Sec. 506. This section expands the list of mandatory

conditions of probation and supervised release to include

submission by the sex offender under supervision to searches

by law enforcement and probation officers with reasonable

suspicion, and to searches by probation officers in the

lawful discharge of their supervision functions.

Sec. 507. This section expands the federal jurisdiction

nexus for kidnapping comparable to that of many other federal

crimes to include travel by the offender in interstate or

foreign commerce, or use of the mails or other means,

facilities, or instrumentalities of interstate or foreign

commerce in furtherance of the offense.

Sec. 508. This section restricts the scope of the common

law marital privileges by making them inapplicable in a

criminal child abuse case in which the abuser or his or her

spouse invokes a privilege to avoid testifying.

Sec. 509. This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1153, the

``Major Crimes Act'' for Indian country cases to add felony

child abuse or neglect to the predicate offenses.

Sec. 510. This section authorizes civil commitment of

certain sex offenders who are dangerous to others because of

serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder.

Sec. 511. This section authorizes grants to States to

operate effective civil commitment programs for sexually

dangerous programs.

Sec. 512. This section amends United States Code, to impose

a mandatory-minimum penalties when the offense involved

trafficking of a child.

Sec. 513. This section amends United States Code to

increase maximum penalties for sexual abuse of wards.

Sec. 514. This section authorizes the indictment of a

defendant at any time for a criminal offense for child

abduction and sex offenses.

Sec. 515. This section makes the failure to report child

abuse a Class A misdemeanor rather than a Class B

misdemeanor.

Sec. 601. Findings.

Sec. 602. This section improves the existing record-keeping

regulatory scheme by adding to the types of depictions

covered to include lascivious exhibition of the genitals or

pubic area of any person, and clarifying the definitions

applicable to the inspection regime so that those entities

that produce such materials comply with the record-keeping

requirements.

Sec. 603. This section adopts new record-keeping

obligations on persons who produce materials depicting

simulated sexual conduct.

Sec. 604. This section specifies that depictions of child

pornography discovered by law enforcement must be maintained

within the government's or a court's control at all times.

Sec. 605. This section amends the obscenity forfeiture

provisions to make the procedures for obscenity forfeitures

the same as they are for most other crimes.

Sec. 606. This section criminalizes the production of

obscenity as well as its transportation, distribution, and

sale, so long as the producer has the intent to transport,

distribute, or sell the material in interstate or foreign

commerce.

Sec. 607. This section authorizes compensation of court-

appointed guardians ad litem.

Sec. 701. This section requires that the Director of the

United States Marshals Service consult and coordinate with

the Administrative Office of the United States Courts

regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch.

Sec. 702. This section authorizes $20,000,000 for each of

fiscal years 2006 through 2010 for hiring additional

necessary personnel.

Sec. 703. This section would create a new Federal criminal

offense for the filing of fictitious liens against real or

personal property owned by Federal judges or attorneys.

Sec. 704. This section makes it a Federal crime to

knowingly make available otherwise restricted personal

information to be used to intimidate or facilitate the

commission of a crime of violence against covered officials

or family members of covered officials.

Sec. 705. This section requires the Attorney General to

report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the

security of Assistant United States Attorneys.

Sec. 706. This section makes it a crime punishable by fine

and imprisonment of ten years to flee prosecution for the

murder, or attempted murder, of a peace officer.

Sec. 707. This section raises sentences for those convicted

of murder, or attempted murder, and kidnapping or attempted

kidnapping.

Sec. 708. This section authorizes Federal judges and

prosecutors to carry firearms, subject to regulations

implemented by the Justice Department regarding training and

use.

Sec. 709. This section modifies the existing penalties for

assaults against a federal law enforcement officer.

Sec. 710. This section creates a new criminal offense for

the killing of, attempting to kill or conspiring to kill, any

public safety officer for a public agency that receives

Federal funding.

Sec. 711. This section raises maximum criminal penalties

for violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 relating to influencing or

injuring jurors or officers of judicial proceedings by

killing, attempting to kill, use force or threatening to kill

or harm an officer or juror.

Sec. 712. This section modifies 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 to

increase penalties for killing or attempting to kill a

witness, victim, or informant to obstruct justice.

Sec. 713. This section modifies 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513 for

killing or attempting to kill a witness, victim, or an

informant in retaliation for their testifying or providing

information to law enforcement by increasing penalties for

causing bodily injury or damaging the person's property or

business or livelihood, or threatening to do so.

Sec. 714. This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1952 relating

to interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering

enterprise by expanding the prohibition against ``unlawful

activity'' to include ``intimidation of, or retaliation

against, a witness, victim, juror, or informant.''

Sec. 715. This section amends section 1513 of title 18 to

clarify proper venue for prosecutions to include the district

in which the official proceeding or conduct occurred.

Sec. 716. This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 930(e)(1) to

prohibit the possession of ``a dangerous weapon'' in a

Federal court facility.

Sec. 717. This section modifies the Federal murder and

manslaughter statutes to include new mandatory minimums.

Sec. 718. This section creates a new grant program for

States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to

create and expand witness protection programs in order to

prevent threats, intimidation and retaliation against victims

of, and witnesses to, crimes.

Sec. 719. This section authorizes grants to State courts to

conduct threat assessments and implement recommended security

changes.

Sec. 720. This section authorizes a new grant program to

provide States with funds to develop threat assessment

databases.

Sec. 721. This section amends 42 U.S.C. Sec. 13862 to

authorize grants to create and expand witness protection

programs to assist witnesses and victims of crime.

Sec. 722. This section authorizes grants for State and

local prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to provide

witnesses assistance programs for young witnesses.

Sec. 723. This section modifies the eligibility

requirements for discretionary grants to allow State court

eligibility.

Sec. 801. This section revises existing section 521 of

title 18, U.S.C., to prohibit gang crimes that are committed

in order to further the activities of a criminal street gang.

Sec. 802. This section expands existing section 1952 of

title 18, U.S.C., to increase penalties and simplifies the

elements of the offense.

Sec. 803. This section amends criminal statutes relating to

definition and penalties for carjacking, illegal gun

transfers to drug traffickers or violent criminals, special

sentencing provisions, and conspiracy to defraud the United

States.

Sec. 804. This section amends existing section 1958 of

title 18, U.S.C., to increase penalties for use of interstate

commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire

and other felony crimes of violence.

Sec. 805. This section amends existing section 1959(a) of

title 18, U.S.C., to increase penalties and expand the

prohibition on include aggravated sexual abuse.

Sec. 806. This section fills a gap in existing federal law

and creates a new criminal offense for violent acts committed

during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.

Sec. 807. This section creates a new criminal offense for

traveling in or causing another to travel in interstate or

foreign commerce or to use any facility in interstate or

foreign commerce with the intent that 2 or more murders be

committed in violation of the laws of any State or the United

States.

Sec. 808. This section modifies the list of RICO predicates

to clarify applicability of predicate offense which occur on

Indian country or in any other area of exclusive Federal

jurisdiction.

Sec. 809. This section applies the rebuttable presumption

in pre-trial release detention hearings to cases in which a

defendant is charged with firearms offenses after having

previously been convicted of a prior crime of violence or a

serious drug offense.

Sec. 810. This section amends United States Code to clarify

venue in capital cases where murder, or related conduct,

occurred.

Sec. 811. This section extends the statute of limitations

for violent crime cases from 5 years to 15 years after the

offense occurred or the continuing offense was completed.

Sec. 812. This section permits admission of statements of a

murdered witness to be introduced against the defendant who

caused a witness' unavailability and the members of the

conspiracy if such actions were foreseeable to the other

members of the conspiracy.

Sec. 813. This section authorizes the Attorney General to

charge as an adult in federal court a juvenile who is 16

years or older and commits a crime of violence.

Sec. 814. This section amends title 18 to create a new

enhanced criminal penalty when an illegal alien commits a

crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense.

Sec. 815. This section requires the Department of Homeland

Security to provide to the Department of Justice information

about certain immigration violators so that such information

can be included in national criminal history databases.

Sec. 816. This section requires the Attorney General and

the Secretary of Homeland Security to jointly conduct a study

on illegal immigration and gang membership.

Sec. 901. This section authorizes use of Byrne grants to

State and local prosecutors to protect witnesses and victims

of crimes; to fund new technology, equipment and training for

prosecutors and law enforcement in order to increase accurate

identification of gang members and violent offenders, and to

facilitate coordination among law enforcement and

prosecutors.

Sec. 902. This section reauthorizes the Gang Resistance

Education and Training Program.

Sec. 903. This section authorizes the Justice Department to

provide grants to establish offender reentry courts.

Sec. 1001. This section authorizes a new grant program for

the National Crime Prevention Council.

Sec. 1002. This section requires the Justice Department to

conduct a study.

Sec. 1101. Short Title.

Sec. 1102. This section requires the Secretary of Health

and Human Services, with the Justice Department, to create a

national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse and

neglect.

Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to the Wisconsin legislature in 1968, one of my mentors warned me against making the perfect the enemy of the good, because if the perfect ends up defeating the good, then bad will prevail.

What we have heard from the opponents of this motion to suspend the rules is that the bill is a good one, but it doesn't do enough, and we ought to add this and this and this and this. But we tried that last year. We passed the core bills of three separate components of this bill, and they ended up getting stuck in the other side of the Capitol Building.

Honestly, our children, our judges, and all Americans can't afford to wait any longer. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), I think, summed it up perfectly, that is, that the victims and their families cannot afford to wait any longer because of parliamentary objections to this, that and everything else.

Now, let us look at what this bill does. It allows a national registration of sex offenders so that we can get the over 100,000 convicted sex offenders who slipped through the registration cracks on the Internet so that people will know if they are in their neighborhood. If you defeat this bill, that is not going to happen.

This bill also prevents the sale of date-rape drugs over the Internet. If you defeat this bill, that is not going to happen.

The bill has a number of provisions to protect Federal judges and their families and courthouse personnel and buildings so that we don't have the tragedy that happened to Judge Lefkos in Chicago when two members of her family were murdered. You defeat this bill, our judges are going to be vulnerable.

Practically every community of over a quarter of a million in this country has faced the scourge of gangs. There is comprehensive gang law in this bill that will help our law enforcement get to the ringleaders of these gangs and to arrest them and throw them into jail. That is going to make all of us safer. You defeat this bill, and that is not going to happen.

I want to see a law made, and those who have spoken in support of this motion to suspend the rules want to see this bill become law as quickly as possible. We have a commitment from the majority leader on the other side of the Capitol, if this bill passes today, to schedule it quickly. In the name of our children and all Americans, vote to suspend the rules.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, March 7,

2006.

Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 4472, the ``Children's Safety

and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005,'' which is scheduled

for consideration on the House floor on Wednesday, March 8,

2006. I agree that Title XI of the manager's amendment

implicates the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and

Workforce, and appreciate your willingness to forego

consideration in order to facilitate floor consideration of

this legislation. I agree that your decision to waive

consideration of the bill should not be construed to limit

the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Workforce

over H.R. 4472 or similar legislation, or otherwise prejudice

your Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees

to this or similar legislation.

Sincerely,

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am happy to be here today to join the debate around this bill. I am hoping that my good friend, the chairman of the committee, will somewhere in the course of this suspension explain to us why three bills were mentioned but one that was added by the majority of the House, H.R. 3132, which deals with hate crimes and is arguably one of the most notable pieces of civil rights criminal enforcement protection considered by the Congress, was inexplicably left off. This makes the process very mysterious to me, because

hate crimes is a very important part of any Child Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act that is before us, and I am very disappointed that somewhere in the night this bill was dropped so that we are now combining three instead of four bills.

It is a Federal crime to hijack an automobile; it is a Federal crime to possess cocaine. It ought to be a Federal crime to drag a man to his death because of his race or to hang a man because of his sexual orientation. We should, and I hope we will through some parliamentary mechanism, seize upon the historic opportunity that is before us to enact legislation that would effectively augment existing Federal law and demonstrate that this Nation will not tolerate violence directed at any individual because of their identity. But instead of supporting this principle, the measure before us takes an opposite direction. I am really, really sorry about this because it does the House an injustice.

I am also, at the same time, wishing to register notice that an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), which was adopted and would have prevented the sale of a firearm to anyone convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense, was also dropped. This is very troubling. Still others will talk about the 43 new mandatory minimum penalties and over 10 new death penalties that have become eligible by offenses in this new bill.

So I am hopeful that we can work out some kind of agreement or acknowledgment about the unusual parliamentary process by which this matter has been brought to us.

I rise in strong opposition to this legislation and the manner by which it comes before us today. Introduced just over two months ago, this legislation, all 164 pages, has managed to completely circumvent the traditional legislative process.

Without the benefit of a single hearing or committee markup, the legislation has somehow found its way here to the floor of the House of Representatives. To make matters worse, it's being considered under suspension of the rules, leaving with reasonable concerns no opportunity to offer modest amendments.

Some might suggest that hearings or markups aren't necessary under these circumstances; since this measure, in large part, is a combination of three different bills, H.R. 3132; H.R. 1279; and H.R. 1751, which have all been considered by this body in the past. But, I strongly disagree. This measure differs from those various proposals in several meaningful ways.

First and foremost, this measure fails to include the hate crimes amendment that I offered--and which was adopted by a 223-199 vote as part of H.R. 3132. My hate crimes amendment arguably is one of the most notable pieces of civil rights criminal enforcement protection considered by this Congress in the last 30 years.

The FBI has reported a dramatic increase in hate motivated violence since the September 11th terrorist attacks. While the overall crime rate has grown by approximately two percent, the number of reported hate crimes have increased dramatically from 8,063 in 2000 to 9,730 in 2001, a 20.7 percent increase. Racial bias again represented the largest percentage of bias-motivated incidents, 44.9 percent; followed by Ethnic/National Origin Bias, 21.6 percent; Religious Bias, 18.8 percent, Sexual Orientation Bias, 14.3 percent; and Disability Bias, 0.4 percent).

It's worth noting that the amendment I offered would not have created new law. It simply would have amended existing law. Namely, section 245 of title 18, passed in 1968, which allowed Federal prosecution of attacks on the Freedom Riders during their historical civil rights work in the South.

The amendment of Section 245 would make it easier for Federal authorities to prosecute racial, religious, ethnic and gender-based violence, in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped Federal prosecutors combat church arson: by loosening the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under Federal law.

Current law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents that occur during the exercise of federally protected activities, such as voting, and does not permit Federal involvement in a range of cases involving crimes motivated by bias against the victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability. This loophole is particularly significant given the fact that four states have no hate crime laws on the books, and another 21 states have extremely weak hate crimes laws.

It is a Federal crime to hijack an automobile or to possess cocaine, and it ought to be a Federal crime to drag a man to death because of his race or to hang a man because of his sexual orientation. We should seize upon this historic opportunity to enact legislation that would effectively augment existing Federal law and demonstrate that this Nation will not tolerate violence directed at any individual because of their identity, instead of supporting legislation, such as the measure before us today, that takes us in the opposite direction.

Second, this measure fails to include an amendment offered by Mr. Nadler--also adopted by voice-vote--which would have prevented the sale of a firearm to anyone convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense.

By now, members of this body are painfully aware of the fact that sex offenders often use firearms to prey upon their unsuspecting victims. In fact, not long ago Keith Dwayne Lyons, a high-risk sex offender, was convicted of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

According to published police reports, Mr. Lyons was aided by the use of a firearm in carrying out his crime. Unfortunately, and notwithstanding such tragedies, it appears to be the wisdom of a small minority that the bill before us is not the proper vehicle to address such matters and prevent them from reoccurring in the future.

Finally, the measure under consideration today includes a complex system of categories whereby sex offenders are classified based upon the nature of their offense. They are also routinely forced to verify the accuracy of their registry information based upon this system.

This new system of registration and registry verification has never been discussed by members of our committee. While some may certainly welcome such a system, others most likely will not. In either event, a change of this magnitude should not be undertaken without adequate thought, consideration and debate.

Setting aside these issues, I remained deeply concerned by the legislation's inclusion of at least 43 new mandatory minimum penalties and over 10 new death penalty eligible offenses. In the past, I've gone to great lengths to explain my deep opposition to mandatory minimum sentences and the death penalty, so I won't repeat many of those arguments here. Except, to say that such penalties are completely arbitrary, ineffective at reducing crime and a total waste of taxpayers' money.

Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, almost 10 percent of all inmates in state and Federal prisons are serving life sentences, a near 83 percent increase from 1992. In two states alone, New York and California, almost 20 percent of inmates are serving life sentences.

And, what do we have to show for such statistics? The answer is simple. A prison system that currently houses more than 2.1 million Americans and costs an estimated $40 billion a year to run and operate.

In the end, the list of lingering concerns associated with this bill is quite staggering.

Over 33 scientific researchers, treatment professionals and child advocates have written in to express their concerns regarding the bill's overly harsh treatment of juveniles.

Advocates from the immigration community have written in to complain about the bill's provisions which will likely encourage state and local law enforcement officials to enforce Federal immigration laws.

And, groups ranging from the Chamber of Commerce to the American Library Association have expressed serious concerns that the provisions outlined in title 6 of the bill will create criminal liability for the producers and distributors of mainstream novels, photographs, Internet content, movies, and TV shows.

With so many outstanding issues and no opportunity to offer even modest amendments, it's hard to see how anyone could lend their support to this measure.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and no one has worked harder in this area than he.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who has worked on a number of issues connected with the measure presently being debated.

Madam Speaker, I yield 16 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, what are we here for, to let the other body off the hook? Anything they do not like, we have to take out? I do not follow that reasoning at all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 2\3/4\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the balance of our time to the Congresswoman from Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin, a former member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following items for inclusion in the Record regarding the House floor consideration of H.R. 4472 on March 8, 2006.

February 23, 2006.

In New Jersey, the Office of the Public Defender represents

all indigent persons entitled to a court hearing concerning

the Megan's Law tier classification and community

notification proposed for them by the State. Over the past

ten years the Office has served as counsel for 60% of persons

challenging their tier levels in New Jersey--nearly 3000

cases in a state where approximately 5000 such cases have

been adjudicated.

Based upon our long and extensive experience with New

Jersey's system of notification and its registrants, as well

as our contact with renowned experts in the field of sex

offender recidivism, we believe we have a unique perspective

to provide the House with comments concerning H.R. 4472 (the

Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005),

currently pending a vote on the House floor.

Our comments focus on four aspects of the current bill.

First, unlike the Senate bill on the same topic (S. 1086) the

House bill will have a significantly negative impact on many

juveniles, subjecting them to notification in their

neighborhoods and via the Internet for possibly 20 years.

This would inflict undue hardship which, given the low risk

of re-offense juvenile sex offenders pose to the public and

their strong amenability to treatment, is often not justified

by a public safety need.

Second, the notification required by H.R. 4472 will apply

to thousands of persons in each state, requiring notice to

registrants' neighborhoods and around their work and school,

and via the Internet. The proposed notification would include

home addresses and places of employment. Neighborhood

notification is currently reserved only for New Jersey's

approximately 160 high risk offenders, but as proposed under

H.R. 4472 would apply to thousands of registrants. Based on

our firsthand experience this form of notification will

predictably lead to large numbers of offenders becoming

homeless and unemployed.

Because this form of notification will undermine the

ability of many registrants to maintain stable housing,

steady employment and ongoing treatment, it will have a

marked impact on registrants' risk levels and opportunities

to remain offense free, and thus will negatively affect

public safety.

Third, by impacting on registrants' abilities to provide

for their most basic needs, H.R. 4472 will severely impede

the implementation of sex offender monitoring programs like

New Jersey's Community Supervision for Life and Parole for

Life programs, which are designed to prevent future

reoffending by registrants. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.3. As

discussed below, due to the form of neighborhood notification

proposed by H.R. 4472 parole officers will be unable to keep

registrants in jobs, maintain their stable home environments

and continue registrants' treatments as those monitoring

programs require. In this way, H.R. 4472 will frustrate New

Jersey's longstanding efforts to monitor sex offenders and

will compromise, not further, community safety.

Fourth,the bill subjects all registrants, including many

juveniles, to the identical

form of Internet and community based notification, without an

individualized risk assessment, despite vast differences

among offenders' risk-of-re-offense levels. By treating

persons with vastly different risk levels identically, H.R.

4472 creates the misimpression that all offenders pose the

same risk. Thus, the bill dilutes the value of notification

and diverts attention from those posing the greatest risk.

1. H.R. Will Inflict Undue Hardship on Juvenile Offenders

Without a Corresponding Benefit to Public Safety.

Sections 111 and 122 of the bill would provide a limited

exception from public notification for juveniles. However,

the bill would require juvenile offenders deemed a tier II to

be subject to 20 years of public notification to communities

and via the Internet. Sec. 111 (6). Some young juveniles may

even unfairly be deemed a tier III since the victim involved

would likely be less than 13 years of age. See Sec. 111 (7).

These tier determinations and the resulting public

notification would occur without any individualized

assessment of whether the juveniles involved posed anything

more than a low risk of re-offense.

Five decades of follow-up studies demonstrate that the vast

majority of juveniles will remain free of sex offense

recidivism. It is consistently found that sex offense

recidivism rates among juveniles are among the lowest of all

such offenders--less than 8% in most treatment follow-up

studies.

Moreover, studies demonstrate that the motivation and

manifestation of sexually inappropriate behaviors of

juveniles are very different than those of adult offenders.

And, children with sexual behavior problems generally respond

well to treatment interventions. If the proposed bill becomes

law, however, it will mean that children will be stigmatized

for life on the basis of their childhood behavior. Despite

the questionable public safety benefits of community

notification with juveniles, it is likely to stigmatize them

fostering peer rejection, isolation, and increased anger.

This impact can prevent juvenile offenders from realizing the

benefits of effective treatments. The proposed notification

and the ensuing stigma will also result in such persons being

denied fair opportunities for employment, education, and

housing despite the low risk of recidivism they typically

pose. Accordingly, the bill will violate the long tradition

in our country of recognizing that most youth who break the

law during childhood can and will mature out of this behavior

with appropriate guidance and treatment.

Thus, the bill would inflict undue hardship on juveniles,

impacting their entire lives, and is not justified by a

public safety need. Rather than resort to such a

counterproductive approach, as the above cited experts

recommend, treatment and supervision should be emphasized for

this group of offenders.

2. The Notification Scheme In H.R. 4472 Will Deprive Many

Registrants, Including Those Who Are a Low or Moderate Risk,

Of The Basic Means To Live Productively In Society With the

Unintended Consequence of Increasing Their Risk Of Re-

Offense.

H.R. 4472 provides that in most cases the same public

notification would be provided to registrant's neighborhoods

and in the vicinity where they work and attend school,

regardless of their danger to the public. Sec. 122(b),(c). In

addition, without determining the actual risk a registrant

poses, that notification will include both a registrant's

home address and the address of his employer. Sec.

114(a)(3),(4). Moreover, the bill applies retroactively to

all applicable offenses.

As set forth above, notification to a registrant's

immediate neighbors is currently reserved for roughly 160

high risk registrants in New Jersey. Due to the impact on an

offender's life that the notice will have, this small number

of registrants is designated ``high risk'' only after an

assessment and court hearing (if requested), showing that the

registrant's risk justifies neighborhood notification. Our

experience demonstrates that notification (whether via the

Internet or provided in a registrant's neighborhood)

containing an employer's name and address will frequently

result in the registrant's termination. This is due to

customers refusing to frequent the business, and neighbors

subjecting the employer to enormous pressure to fire the

offender.

Likewise, New Jersey registrants subject to neighborhood

notification providing their home addresses are often

uprooted from their homes, and eventually become homeless.

Typically this is due to landlords being pressured by

surrounding homeowners to evict the registrant. And in cases

where registrants own their home, significant threats and

vandalism have occurred to drive the offender away. In one

New Jersey case, following notification five bullets were

fired through the front window of a registrant's apartment by

a neighbor, nearly wounding an innocent tenant. Thus, under

H.R. 4472 it is predictable that substantial numbers of

registrants will become homeless.

Registrants pose a much higher risk of re-offense when they

have no job or stable housing. This is agreed upon by studies

in the field of sex offender recidivism, New Jersey's own

actuarial scale for determining registrant risk, as well as

our experience working with registrants over the past ten

years. Therefore, the unintended consequence of providing

many registrants' home addresses and places of employment as

required by H.R. 4472 will be that substantial numbers will

have their re-offense risk increased.

Furthermore, homeless and jobless registrants are, of

course, unable to pay for sex offender and substance abuse

treatment which have been proven to markedly reduce offense

risk. Also, we have witnessed how the desperation caused by

this homeless and jobless state has led our clients to suffer

severe stress, and relapse into substance abuse, and other

high risk behaviors for recidivism. Thus, the notification

proposed by H.R. 4472 to registrants' neighborhoods listing

their place of employment may trigger a new offense, by

removing the supportive components of a person's

rehabilitation. See R. Karl Hanson & Andrew Harris, Solicitor

General of Canada, Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Recidivism

(1998) at 2 (``recidivists showed increased anger and

subjective distress just prior to offending''); ATSA, The

Registration and Community Notification of the Adult Sexual

Offender at 3 (2005) (notification will ``ostracize[]'' sex

offenders and ``may inadvertently increase their danger.'')

Finally, H.R. 4472 would require notification to be

distributed to neighborhoods in cases involving an intra-

familial offense. As this notification will result in

victims' identities being disclosed to neighbors, the

practice will act as a significant deterrent to having

victims of familial offenses report them to police. Sec. 111

(6), (7). Thus, public notification in cases involving a

single intra-familial offense should be eliminated from the

bill.

Given the predictable consequences of the notification

proposed in H.R. 4472, we submit that notice to a

registrant's neighborhood or around his place of employment

which includes his home address, and any notification

including his place of work, should occur only for high risk

offenders, and only after an individualized risk assessment.

Otherwise, H.R. 4472 will run the danger of destabilizing

large numbers of registrants by having them lose the jobs

and housing essential to maintaining offense-free lives.

As mentioned, the notice proposed by the bill will also

discourage victims of intra-familial offenses from

contacting law enforcement.

3. The Notification Proposed in H.R. 4472 Will Undermine

the Ability of States Like New Jersey to Implement Parole for

Life Programs Which Require Law Enforcement Officers to

Monitor Registrants, and Require Registrants to Maintain

Jobs, Housing and Treatment to Reduce their Risk of Re-

Offense.

Since 1994, every adult registrant in New Jersey who

committed a sex offense has been placed on a form of close

monitoring known as community or parole supervision for life.

See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. The purpose of the program is to

locate and monitor adult registrants, potentially for life,

``as if on parole.'' Id. Applicable State regulations provide

that the registrant must maintain stable housing and a job,

avoid drug or alcohol use (as monitored by urine testing),

occasionally submit to random visits by their parole officer

at home, attend sex offender and/or substance abuse

treatment, as well as other requirements.

The success of this eleven-year-old program depends upon a

parole officer being able to locate the lifetime parolee in

their home, do random drug and alcohol testing, check for

other signs' of instability or loss of employment, and thus

prevent the precursors to re-offending. However, the

notification provisions of H.R. 4472 will lead to large

numbers of offenders becoming homeless and will result in

parole officers being unable to locate registrants and

provide them with the close supervision needed to reduce

recidivism rates. Thus, the State's efforts to assist

registrants in keeping stable housing or a job, basic

requirements of parole, will be frustrated.

When we explained to a New Jersey parole officer that the

proposed legislation will put the addresses of many sex

offenders' employers on the Internet, and be provided to

offenders' neighbors or to persons living around their

employers, she stated that her parolees would ``spiral

downward,'' and that they ``wouldn't care'' about trying to

keep from re-offending. She stated, ``Our job would be so

difficult . . . it's hard enough for them to get jobs.'' She

expressed the view that a significant number might re-offend

because, ``A lot of these things are due to high stress

rates.'' Finally, she expressed concern that most of them

would end up ``in homeless shelters'' where there is an

``increased risk of disappearance or committing a new offense

of some kind''--either a non-sexual criminal offense or

possibly a sexual offense.

In addition to Community and Parole Supervision for Life,

New Jersey also assigns special probation officers to

exclusively monitor sex offenders while on parole (prior to

implementation of their special sentence of community or

parole supervision for life) so they can concentrate on the

particular needs this population presents, and provide the

type of close supervision they require. (Notably, we have

observed that other states appear to be putting more and more

sex offenders on probation for life and similarly long

sentences, even for very minor offenses--so it is likely that

this legislation will strongly affect those states as well.)

When we explained the notification requirements of the bill

to a special probation officer he replied that, ``You'll end

up having many, many people re-offending--what else could

they do?'' When asked if he thought these provisions would

cause many registrants to lose their jobs, he 4 replied,

``Absolutely. I can't imagine anyone would want them.'' He

explained that without ``work,

housing, and normal responsibilities'' the registrants would

have ``no self esteem.'' He said that they ``would not listen

to me,'' and would likely ``go out and assault someone

else.''

Thus, there is serious concern that the basic purpose of

the registration provisions of Megan's law (which is to

enable law enforcement to locate registrants in the course of

investigating new offenses, monitor registrants, and explore

allegations of misconduct by such registrants), will be

substantially undermined by the notification provision of

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, this is a very difficult bill to try to debate because it includes a lot of different bills, everything except the hate crimes bill, which had broad support at least on this side. It includes a variety of slogans and sound bites, many of which have actually been shown to increase crime, disrupt orderly, proportionate, and fair sentencing, it wastes money and violates common sense.

Among these approaches are trying more juveniles as adults, the mandatory minimums, new death penalties, and habeas corpus restrictions, which is a process by which dozens of innocent people on death row have been able to show their innocence and escape the death penalty because they were innocent of the underlying charges. It also includes a national sex offender registry that includes misdemeanors and juveniles in the same kind of registration as the most serious predatory offenses.

If we are going to be serious about dealing with child sexual abuse, we ought to face the fact that virtually all of the abusers are either related to the child or at least known to the child's family. No studies have shown that these things actually reduce child abuse; and, in fact, anecdotal evidence would suggest that we might be actually increasing crime. Because the people who are the subject of these are unable to get a job, unable to live in any kind of neighborhood, have nothing to lose, the restrictive covenants now restricting where they can live, and all of these things may in fact increase crime. But there are certainly no studies to show that they have reduced by any measurable amounts the amount of child sexual abuse.

We are treating more juveniles as adults. That thing has been studied over and over again, and we know that treating more juveniles as adults will increase the crime rates. In every State, the most heinous crimes are already subject to juveniles being treated as adults. So if this passes, we are talking about those who are not now treated as adults who would be treated as adults under this bill. Those are the marginal cases.

We know that those marginal cases sent to adult court will not have education and psychological services and family services available in the juvenile court. They will either be locked up with adults or just released on probation. Whatever the adult court judge does will be more likely to have crime in the future than if the juvenile court can provide those services.

We know how to reduce juvenile crime. It is the prevention programs. And unlike many bills, there is actually some money in this bill for prevention programs. They work. So those provisions are actually meaningful. We also have reentry programs in here. They work and have been proven to reduce recidivism. So there are at least some provisions of the bill that have something to recommend them.

But the mandatory minimums in the bill have been studied. We know from all the studies that mandatory minimums have been shown to waste money, discriminate against minorities, and violate common sense. This bill includes mandatory minimums for juveniles that includes a 20-year mandatory minimum for a fistfight that results in a serious injury, and 10 years mandatory minimum if there is no serious injury; 10 years mandatory minimum for a fistfight in a school yard. This bill cannot be serious.

We have death penalties which have been proven to have no effect on crime. Innocent people are convicted. We have a habeas corpus provision that will eliminate the possibility that many of those who are innocent on death row, and we know there are many of them, will not have the opportunity to have their cases adjudicated.

We saw in the confirmation hearings for Justice Alito, when he was asked if an innocent person had a constitutional right against execution, and he didn't give a straight answer. We need to make sure people's rights are protected and that habeas corpus provisions are eliminated from the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a letter that says, ``For the first time, the statute would implicate a wide array of legitimate, mainstream businesses that have never been linked in any way to the sexual exploitation of children.'' It continues, ``In some instances, the proposed amendments are vague and offer little guidance as to what is required of those needing to comply, and in others, they impose requirements that are simply impossible to meet.''

The letter is signed by the Chamber of Commerce, the American Library Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Screen Actors Guild, American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Association of Law Libraries and others.

February 7, 2006.

Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Hatch: We are writing to express our

continuing concern with the legislative language contained in

S. 2140, the Prevention of Sexual Exploitation of Children

Act that would significantly expand the scope of Title 18

U.S.C. Sec. 2257. As you know, we strongly support the

objective of increasing the Justice Department's ability to

combat child pornography and exploitation. The members of our

broad coalition are committed to protecting children from

exploitation. That is why we appreciate and acknowledge the

efforts of the sponsors of S. 2140 to address many of the

issues raised by prior attempts to amend Sec. 2257. However,

serious concerns remain.

S. 2140 would significantly expand the types and categories

of conduct that would trigger the requirements of Sec. 2257.

For the first time, the statute would implicate a wide array

of legitimate, mainstream businesses that have never been

linked in any way to the sexual exploitation of children. S.

2140 dramatically expands the class of persons required to

keep records and to label products under Sec. 2257. Many

affected by the proposed expansion are businesses and

individuals that have no actual contact or relationship with

the performers in question. In some instances, the proposed

amendments are vague and offer little guidance as to what is

required of those needing to comply, and in others, they

impose requirements that are simply impossible to meet.

Expansion of Sec. 2257 as envisioned by the proposed

legislation will likely divert even more resources toward

legal challenges to the statute and away from the

legislation's primary objective of prosecuting those who

sexually exploit children.

It is important to note that since Sec. 2257 was passed in

1988, the inspection regime of the law has, to our knowledge,

never been used. Rather than expanding the scope of Sec. 2257

to cover a myriad of lawful, legitimate, Main-street

businesses, we believe effective enforcement of the existing

regime is first necessary. Accordingly, any amendments to the

statute should be narrow and focused on individuals that seek

to harm young people.

Finally, from the outset of this process, we have been

prepared to discuss the serious concerns our coalition has

with the proposals to amend Sec. 2257. However, we are not

involved in the negotiation of the current bill language.

While we remain committed to working with all interested

parties, we do not believe that in its current form, S. 2140

addresses the myriad of legitimate concerns raised by our

coalition.

We applaud you for your continued leadership and dedication

to protecting children

and reiterate our commitment to work with you to address this

serious issue.

Sincerely,

United States Chamber of Commerce; Video Software Dealers

Association; Americans for Tax Reform; American Library

Association; American Conservative Union; National

Association of Broadcasters; National Cable &

Telecommunications Association; Motion Picture

Association of America; Screen Actors Guild; Media

Freedom Project; American Hotel and Lodging

Association; The American Federation of Television and

Radio Artists; Magazine Publishers of America;

Directors Guild of America; Digital Media Association;

Computer & Communications Industry Association;

Association of Research Libraries; The Creative

Coalition; Association of National Advertisers;

Association of American Publishers; American

Association of Advertising Agencies; American

Advertising Federation; American Booksellers Foundation

for Free Expression; Publishers Marketing Association;

Freedom to Read Foundation; American Association of Law

Libraries

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following items for inclusion in the Record regarding the House floor consideration of H.R. 4472 on March 8, 2006.

Oppose H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act

of 2005

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil

Liberties Union, a non-partisan organization with hundreds of

thousands of activists and members and 53 affiliates nation-

wide, we write to express our opposition to H.R. 4472, the

Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005

(``Omnibus Crime''). H.R.4472 would create ten new federal

death penalties and almost 30 new discriminatory mandatory

minimums that infringe upon protected First Amendment speech,

effectively eliminate federal and state prisoners' ability to

challenge

wrongful convictions in federal court, make it more difficult

to monitor sex offenders and create more serious juvenile

offenders by incarcerating children in adult prisons. H.R.

4472 is scheduled for a vote on the House floor on Wednesday,

March 8, 2006; we strongly urge you to oppose this

legislation.

Congress Should Not Expand The Federal Death Penalty Until It Ensures

Innocent People Are Not On Death Row

The death penalty is in need of reform, not expansion.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 123

prisoners on death row have now been exonerated. Chronic

problems, including inadequate defense counsel and racial

disparities, plague the death penalty system in the United

States. The expansion of the death penalty for gang and other

crimes creates an opportunity for more arbitrary application

of the death penalty.

In addition to expanding the number of federal death

penalty crimes, this bill also expands venue in capital

cases, making any location even tangentially related to the

crime a possible site for the trial. This raises

constitutional as well as public policy concerns. The U.S.

Constitution states that ``the Trial of all Crimes . . .

shall be by Jury; and shall be held in the State where the

said Crimes shall have been committed.'' This concept is

important in order to prevent undue hardship and partiality

when an accused person is prosecuted in a place that has no

significant connection to the offense with which he is

charged. This proposed change in H.R. 4472 would increase the

inequities that already exist in the federal death penalty

system, giving prosecutors tremendous discretion to ``forum

shop'' for the most death-friendly jurisdiction in which to

try their case.

In carjacking cases, this legislation would effectively

relieve the government from having to prove that a person

intended to cause the death of a person before being subject

to the death penalty. This provision is likely

unconstitutional in the context of capital cases. In

addition, the bill would allow the death penalty for attempt

and conspiracy in carjacking cases, which we believe is

unconstitutional.

H.R. 4472 Erodes Federal Judges' Sentencing Discretion by Proposing

Harsher Mandatory Minimum Sentences

This legislation would create 29 new mandatory minimum

sentences that would result in unfair and discriminatory

prison terms. Many of the criminal penalties in this bill are

increased to mandatory minimum sentences, including the

sentence for second-degree murder that would be a mandatory

sentence of 30 years. Although, in theory, mandatory

minimums were created to address disparate sentences that

resulted from indeterminate sentencing systems, in reality

they shift discretion from the judge to the prosecutor.

Prosecutors hold all the power over whether a defendant

gets a plea bargain in order for that defendant to avoid

the mandatory sentence. This creates unfair and

inequitable sentences for people who commit similar

crimes, thus contributing to the very problem mandatory

minimums were created to address.

people could be convicted of a ``gang'' crime even if they are not

members of a gang

This legislation would impose severe penalties for a

collective group of three or more people who commit ``gang''

crimes. This bill amends the already broad definition of

``criminal street gang'' to an even more ambiguous standard

of a formal or informal group or association of three (3) or

more people who commit two (2) or more ``gang'' crimes. The

number of people required to form a gang decreases from five

(5) people in an ongoing group under current law to three (3)

people who could just be associates or casual acquaintances

under this proposed legislation. Under current law it is

essential to establish that a gang had committed a

``continuing series of offenses.'' By eliminating this

requirement, H.R. 4472 defeats the purpose of a gang law,

i.e. to target criminal activity that has some type of

connection to a tight knit group of people that exists for

the purpose of engaging in illegal activities.

H.R. 4472 Jeopardizes a Person's Right to a Fair Trial

Innocent people could be convicted of crimes they did not

commit if the statute of limitations is extended as proposed

in this legislation. The Omnibus Crime bill proposes to

extend the statute of limitations for non-capital crimes of

violence. Generally, the statute of limitations for non-

capital federal crimes is five (5) years after the offense is

committed. Fifteen years after a crime is committed, alibi

witnesses could have disappeared or died, other witnesses'

memories could have faded and evidence may be unreliable. The

use of questionable evidence could affect a person's ability

to defend him or herself against charges and to receive a

fair trial.

This legislation would also preclude defense attorneys in

child pornography cases from obtaining possession of the

alleged child pornography, possibly depriving the defendant

of a fair trial. This provision is entirely unnecessary,

since federal courts routinely issue extremely restrictive

protective orders regarding alleged child pornography. These

protective orders preclude duplication or review of the

alleged child pornography except as necessary for the

preparation of the defense. Giving the government sole

possession of the material may well harm the defendant's

case. Forensic analysis is often critical in determining

whether the material is, in fact, child pornography.

Title VI Infringes Upon Constitutionally Protected Speech Under the

First Amendment

The legislation would require record keeping for simulated

sexual conduct. Simulated sexual conduct that is not obscene

is protected under the First Amendment. ``Laws that burden

material protected by the First Amendment must be approached

from a skeptical point of view and must be given strict

scrutiny.'' The fact that those laws only burden rather than

prohibit protected material does not save them

constitutionally.

This provision of the bill infringes upon protected speech

and is not narrowly tailored to solve the problems of child

pornography. Understandably, mainstream producers will comply

with the law, but those who are intent on making child

pornography are unlikely to do so. This provision is

therefore constitutionally suspect.

Federal Courts Would Essentially Be Unable To Release Some People on

Death Row Who Were Wrongfully Convicted

Most habeas corpus petitions that challenge a person's

death or criminal sentence are brought to federal court based

on a constitutional error that under the law is considered

``harmless'' or ``non-prejudicial.'' These types of legal

errors do not involve substantial rights and do not

necessarily result in a person being released from custody.

H.R. 4472 would prevent federal courts from hearing claims in

death penalty cases that involve claims of cruel and unusual

punishment under the Eighth Amendment or whether a

defendant's lawyer was ineffective during the sentencing

phase of a capital case.

This provision of the bill has serious implications for the

independence of the federal judiciary. Congress' attempt to

strip Article III courts of their constitutional habeas

corpus jurisdiction is unconstitutional under the doctrine of

Separation of Powers. Removing jurisdiction over many habeas

claims from Federal courts ignores the Separation of Powers

doctrine by eliminating the role of the courts in upholding

constitutional rights of prisoners.

H.R. 4472 Would Result in the Routine Collection and Permanent

Retention of DNA Samples and Profiles From Innocent People

The ``Violence Against Women Act of 2005'' (VAWA) was

signed into law on January 5, 2006, (P.L. No: 109-162) and

dramatically expands the government's authority to collect

and permanently retain DNA samples. Under this law, persons

who are merely arrested or detained by federal authorities

would be forced to have their DNA collected and stored

alongside those of convicted felons in the Federal DNA

database. However, under current law, DNA samples that are

voluntarily submitted to law enforcement authorities are not

included in the Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS). In

addition, DNA profiles of individuals arrested but not

convicted of crimes can be expunged from CODIS upon receipt

of a ``certified copy of a final court order establishing

that such charge has been dismissed or has resulted in an

acquittal.''

However, H.R. 4472 would permit voluntarily submitted

samples to be included in CODIS and would eliminate the

expungement provision for people whose DNA was incorporated

in the federal database based on an arrest that never

resulted in a conviction. Retaining a person's DNA in a

criminal database renders him or her an automatic suspect for

any future crime. This is problematic for any category of

tested persons, but especially for those who have been

arrested but not convicted of a crime.

In addition, the Omnibus Crime bill would allow states to

upload to CODIS DNA samples submitted voluntarily in order to

eliminate people as suspects of a crime. This will increase

the use by law enforcement of DNA ``sweeps'' and reducing the

willingness of citizens to cooperate with the police.

H.R. 4472 Will Make It More Difficult To Monitor Sex Offenders by

Simply Forcing Offenders Underground

The proposed legislation requires sex offenders to update

registry information within 5 days of a change in residence,

employment or student status. This requirement is unrealistic

and works against the goal of being able to monitor sex

offenders. If the registration requirements are unrealistic,

offenders will fail to register and end up underground, which

is contrary to the goal of tracking and locating them. Under

the Omnibus Crime bill, states will be required to verify sex

offender registry information in persons possibly as

frequently as once every three months and required to verify

their residences as often as once every month depending on

the class of offender. This will be an enormous burden on the

states to create and implement systems to track sex offenders

on a monthly basis.

The bill will also require the work addresses of sex

offenders to be available on the Internet. Publicizing

information about employers and their addresses on the

Internet could ultimately lead to employers refusing to hire

former sex offenders. Research has shown that significant

supervision upon release and involvement in productive

activities are critical to preventing sex offenders from

reoffending. Limiting the opportunities

of sex offenders to maintain gainful employment is counter-

productive to their rehabilitation as well as to keeping

communities safe.

Children Would Be Put in Federal Prison With Little Opportunity for

Education or Rehabilitation

Under the Omnibus Crime bill, more children will become

hardened criminals after being tried in Federal court and

incarcerated in adult prisons. H.R. 4472 would give

prosecutors the discretion to determine when to try a young

person in Federal court as an adult, if the juvenile is 16

years of age or older and commits a crime of violence. The

decision by a prosecutor to try a juvenile as an adult cannot

be reviewed by a judge under this legislation. This

unreviewable process of transferring youth to adult Federal

court is particularly troubling when juveniles are not

routinely prosecuted in the Federal system and there are no

resources or facilities to address the needs of youth.

For the above-mentioned reasons, we urge members to oppose

H.R. 4472 when the House votes on the bill on March 8, 2006.

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson,

Director,

Jesselyn McCurdy,

Legislative Counsel

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 540 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 540 is a structured rule which provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this resolution. It provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. It shall not be subject to amendment or a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 540 and the underlying bill, H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005.

First, I want to extend my gratitude to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary. I also would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the author of this important piece of legislation.

As I previously noted in my opening statement for the rule on H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005, this past month has ushered in the passage of very meaningful and very significant legislation to reform and strengthen our courts both procedurally and substantively. Today we have an opportunity to strengthen our courts in a more literal sense by protecting them against a rising tide of violence that has harmed and claimed the lives of innocent individuals charged with enforcing and upholding our laws.

It was only a number of months ago that tragedy struck the Fulton County courthouse in Atlanta, my home State of Georgia. There, as most of America watched and sorrowfully remember, on March 13 a cold-blooded killer took the lives of four innocent people, forever robbing their families and depriving our legal system of the distinguished service of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes, age 64; his court reporter, Julie Anne Brandau, age 46; Fulton County Sheriff Deputy Hoyt Teasley, age 43; and Federal agent David Wilhelm, age 40.

Mr. Speaker, law and order, not violence, should permeate our courts. Accordingly, H.R. 1751 would take important steps to deter and punish those who would exact revenge because they were caught in a criminal activity.

First, this bill will further punish any individual who would seek to influence, impede, or retaliate against a judge, a prosecutor, a law enforcement officer, or their families by increasing the penalties and providing new mandatory minimums such as 30-years-to-life mandatory minimum for kidnapping.

Additionally, each and every day men and women in law enforcement and public safety across this country proudly don their uniforms, fully recognizing that they represent their cities, States and their country; and they

proudly assume a substantial amount of personal risk to do so.

Therefore, H.R. 1751 would establish as a new category of criminal offense the killing, the attempted killing, or conspiracy to kill any public safety officer for a federally funded public agency. This legislation defines ``public safety officer'' as an employee or officer of the judiciary, a firefighter, a law enforcement officer, or any other State or local employee.

This bill would also crack down on the disclosure on the Internet of personal information of judges, court personnel, law enforcement and safety officers, jurors, and witnesses.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to emphasize H.R. 1751's protections for jurors, witnesses, victims, and informants. The reality is that criminals or their associates can have the means to intimidate victims, and especially witnesses, essentially muscling them out of the courtroom. Accordingly, this bill goes a long way to ensuring the safety of witnesses and victims in order to keep their testimony in the court and keep the criminals behind bars.

This legislation expands the current framework between the United States Marshals Service and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to facilitate consultation and cooperation in the development of security standards and requirements for our courthouses. It prohibits the possession of a dangerous weapon, including a firearm, in a Federal court facility; and it creates opportunities for State courts to improve security through discretionary Byrne grants.

Mr. Speaker, in recent debates, some of my colleagues have unfortunately called into question the importance of legal reform in this country to the point of insinuating that such reforms are not worth this House's time for consideration.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the judicial branch affects the lives of every single American and almost every aspect of American life from conception to natural death, and sometimes even after death. Therefore, I think legal reform has and will continue to be a very appropriate matter for consideration and a good use of this Congress' time, especially when we are dealing with the safety of those men and women involved with our all-important third branch of government.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of this rule. I ask my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close in celebration of the men and women who put their lives on the line every day, whether by working the beat, extinguishing a four-alarm fire, or ensuring equal justice under the law by means of the gavel.

As I mentioned earlier, when these individuals put on their uniforms, they become representatives of the community in service of the community. They are not enforcing their own will; but they are, rather, seeking guidance from and working to uphold the laws of the land.

Mr. Speaker, while there are some individuals who are occasionally accused of abusing their power, the vast majority, the vast majority, of these civil servants are only doing their job admirably; and, therefore, there is absolutely no justification for an accused or guilty individual to ever attach their anger to or seek revenge against these individuals who are only doing their duty.

Unfortunately, the increase of violent activities against judges, and we talked about that here during this hour, court officers, witnesses, victims, and law enforcement has made this bill not only necessary but also a top priority in the preservation of our system of law and justice.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the discussion of H.R. 1751 and the numerous amendments this rule has made in order. As always, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I want to congratulate my friend from Georgia and my friend from California for their management of this issue.

I would like to say that the rule itself provides by a 2-1 ratio more amendments offered by Democrats than Republicans. Not every single amendment was made in order, as I see my friend, Mrs. McCarthy, here. I will say, as we regularly hear people say that the amendments the Democrats proposed are not given an opportunity to be heard on the floor, by a 2-1 margin, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing amendments made in order by Democrats over Republicans.

Specifically to the concern I know will be raised by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), we frankly upstairs had been under the impression that the language that she and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) had proceeded through consideration, and I was wrong on that. I had gotten some incorrect information.

But I have talked with staff members of the Judiciary Committee; and I have an assurance, and while I know this amendment will not be made in order today, when it comes to looking at background checks and the history of individuals, this is a priority that the committee will put forward. They have assured me that they will proceed with hearings on this issue. I would like to say to my friend from New York who will raise concerns about this that is a priority that we have and we hope very much to address it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the legislation itself. I would like to begin by congratulating Chairman Sensenbrenner and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who as a former judge is obviously concerned about the threats that have been out there for his former colleagues. I believe it is very important, when we think about the importance of the rule of law, which is absolutely essential, absolutely essential for the success of liberty, ensuring the safety of these judges who have continued to face threats, is very, very important for us to do.

Last night in the Rules Committee, our colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions) referred to his father who was a judge, and as we all know, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He talked about those threats. He told me repeatedly about the threats that existed. This legislation, I believe, that Mr. Gohmert has put together will go a long way towards addressing that concern.

I would like to talk about a very important provision that is included in this bill that enjoys strong bipartisan support. One of the serious problems with which we are all dealing is the issue of illegal immigration and the

problem we have of people who are in this country. We know 98 percent of them are here to simply feed their families, but we know there are people here in this country who perpetrate crime against our fellow citizens. We know there continues to be the existence of a threat that a terrorist could come here. We know that Mohammed Atta, one of those who flew a plane into the World Trade Center Tower on September 11, 2001, was, in fact, here illegally. So as we look at the issue of illegal immigration, focusing on criminals and potential terrorists is a very high priority.

One of the worst days for law enforcement in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was April 29, 2002. That is 3\1/2\ years ago. On that day, Deputy Sheriff David March was on patrol. He pulled over for a traffic violation an individual who ended up putting a gun to Deputy March's head and brutally killing him.

The alleged killer, Armando Garcia, fled to Mexico, and it has been 3\1/2\ years, and we have not resolved that case.

Within just a few weeks of that April 29 killing in 2002, upstairs in the Rules Committee I convened a meeting of my colleagues, Buck McKeon, who represented the March family; Ken Calvert, who was very involved in this issue and concerned about it. On the other side of the aisle, Howard Berman and Adam Schiff, and we also had at that meeting, Mr. Speaker, representatives from the Mexican Embassy's judicial department within the embassy here; and we also had representatives from our Department of Justice.

Now, our concern has been a terrible provision that exists in Mexican law. It is actually constitutional, saying that the Mexican Government refuses to extradite a criminal who potentially could face the death penalty, and this is something that has existed for a long period of time. Something that was very unfortunate was that in September of 2001, the Mexican Supreme Court took steps to say that they refused to extradite an alleged criminal to a country or a state or a jurisdiction that had life imprisonment as the punishment because they considered that to be cruel and unusual punishment.

Mr. Speaker, it is horrible that they have that policy, and we need to do everything we can to change that policy. We need to encourage the Mexican Government to change that policy. Why? This does not have to do with something that took place in their country. It has to do with a crime perpetrated on U.S. soil. So I believe the Mexican Government should, in fact, extradite an alleged criminal who has perpetrated a crime here in the United States to face the punishment in the jurisdiction where the crime was perpetrated.

So what has happened here, Mr. Speaker, is that we want to ensure that we never see happen again what happened on April 29, 2002. And I should add that is not the only instance. We all know of many other instances where law enforcement officers have been killed and people have fled the country. But this case has become a very prominent one.

So I was approached by Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, and I was joined by my colleague Mr. Schiff, who serves on the Judiciary Committee; and we were asked to introduce legislation that would make it a Federal crime to kill a law enforcement officer and flee the country. We spent a great deal of time working with a wide range of organizations, and we have put together a package which I believe can allow us to do that without impinging on the local jurisdiction that we believe district attorneys should have in dealing with this issue. It does not in any way diminish the level of punishment. But what it does do, Mr. Speaker, is it puts the full force of the Federal Government behind an effort to ensure that we do not have happen again what happened on April 29 of 2002.

One of the things that I believe is important is to recognize that there are families that have suffered, and I have had the opportunity, through Sheriff Baca and through others, to get to know the family members of Deputy Sheriff David March. So, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3900 is the legislation that Adam Schiff and I introduced, and it is included as part of this very important court security measure that Mr. Gohmert has offered, and I would like to name the provisions that are included calling for making it a Federal crime to kill a law enforcement officer in the name of Deputy Sheriff David March. And I spoke with Sheriff Lee Baca this morning about that, and I really feel that we are doing this in the name of David March to keep the memory of his life alive, the memory alive so that we can send a signal that we are not going to tolerate this kind of act in the future.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have here, again, a very important measure included in critical must-pass legislation, and I hope that my colleagues will join in providing bipartisan support for this measure.