Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1751) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their family members, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005.

Violent attacks and intimidation against courthouse personnel and law enforcement officers present a threat to the integrity of the justice system that Congress has a duty to confront. The murder of family members of United States District Judge Joan Lefkow, the brutal slayings of Judge Rowland Barnes, his court reporter, his deputy sheriff, and a Federal officer in Atlanta, and the cold-blooded shootings outside the Tyler, Texas, courthouse all underscore the need to provide better protection for judges, courthouse personnel, witnesses, law enforcement and their family members.

This bill is an important bipartisan measure introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). It will help address the problem of violence in and around our Nation's courthouses.

Statistics show that aggravated assaults against police officers are a serious national problem. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 52 law enforcement officers were killed in the United States in 2002 and 56 were killed in 2001. From 1994 through 2003 a total of 616 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty. Approximately 100 of these officers were murdered after being entrapped or ambushed by their killers. These attacks are simply unacceptable.

The lives of judicial personnel are also at great risk. According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Federal judges receive nearly 700 threats a year and several Federal judges require security personnel to protect them and their families from terrorist associates, violent gangs, drug organizations and disgruntled litigants. The intimidation of judges directly assaults the impartial administration of justice our Constitution demands.

Court witnesses are also at risk. Threats and intimidation toward witnesses continue to grow, particularly at the State and local level. In 1996, a witness intimidation study by the Justice Department included that witness intimidation is a pervasive and insidious problem. No part of the country is spared and no witness can feel entirely free or safe.

Prosecutors interviewed in this study estimated that witness intimidation

occurs in 75 to 100 percent of the violent crimes committed in some gang-dominated neighborhoods.

This bill passed the Committee on the Judiciary by an overwhelming vote of 26-5. The legislation enhances criminal penalties for assaults and the killing of Federal, State and local judges, witnesses, law enforcement officers, courthouse personnel and their family members.

It provides grants to State and local courts to improve security services and improves the ability of the United States Marshals to protect the Federal judiciary.

The bill also prohibits public disclosure, on the Internet and other public sources, of personal information about judges, law enforcement, victims and witnesses to protect Federal judges and prosecutors from organized efforts to harass and intimidate them through false filings of liens and other encumbrances against their property and improves coordination between the marshals and the Federal judges.

The bill also contains vital security measures for Federal prosecutors handling dangerous trials against terrorists, drug organizations, and other organized crime figures.

Finally, the bill incorporates key provisions of the Peace Officer Justice Act, legislation introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), to bring justice to those who murder law enforcement personnel and flee to foreign nations to escape prosecution and justice in this country.

The bill is supported by those on the front lines of our criminal justice system and is backed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators; the Federal Bar Association; the Federal Criminal Investigators Association; and the Fraternal Order of Police; the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys; the International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO; the Major County Sheriffs' Association; the National Law Enforcement Council; the National Sheriffs' Association; the National Troopers Coalition; the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators; and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

When judges, prosecutors, law enforcement and courthouse personnel speak in a clear and unanimous voice, we have a duty to listen and to act to give their members the tools and resources necessary for their protection.

Mr. Chairman, Congress has an obligation to ensure that America's courts and the brave men and women of law enforcement render justice without fear of assault or retaliation. Judges, witnesses, courthouse personnel, and law enforcement officers must operate without fear in order to administer the law without bias.

I urge my colleagues to strengthen the integrity of America's justice system and the security of court and law enforcement personnel by supporting this vital and bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the author of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this manager's amendment to clarify that offenders who attempt to murder or conspire to murder a Federal judge, Federal law enforcement officer, or a federally funded public safety officer are subject to a penalty of life imprisonment. If death results, the death penalty can be applied to offenders who are principals.

In addition, the amendment adds Indian tribes as eligible entities for court security grants in section 18 of the bill.

Finally, the amendment clarifies the language as to the coordination between the Marshals Service and the Administrative Office on security issues. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to this important bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Scott amendment. It strips all of the mandatory minimum penalties out of the bill.

The amendment seeks to strip the core provisions of the bill. Let me remind everyone of the nature of the problem we face today. More than 57,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in 2003, or one in every 10 officers serving in the United States. The numbers have been increasing since 1999, even as every other crime has decreased or held steady.

The Executive Director of the Fraternal Order of Police noted recently ``There is less respect for authority in general and police officers specifically. The predisposition of criminals to use firearms is probably at the highest point of our history.''

The secure access proposal addresses this problem by sending a message of deterrence. The existing penalty for assaulting a law enforcement officer is 8 years, 15 if with a weapon. Under current criminal law, a false statement made to an FBI agent in a terrorism investigation carries the same penalty as a violent assault of a police officer.

Federal, State, and local judges have suffered from rising threats, and deadly attacks have been directed against judges as well as courthouse participants.

According to the Administrative Office of United States Courts, there are almost 700 threats made a year against Federal judges, and in numerous cases Federal judges have had security details assigned to them for fear of attack by members of terrorist organizations, violent gangs, and disgruntled litigants.

H.R. 1751 provides a reasonable penalty structure for assaults against judges, prosecutors and public safety officers, as well as members of their families. The bill adopts a penalty structure requiring 1 to 10 years for an assault that results in bodily injury, such as a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, disfigurement, pain or illness; 3 to 12 years for substantial bodily injury, temporary but substantial disfigurement, temporary but substantial loss or impairment; and 10 to 30 years for serious bodily injury, substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty.

These penalties roughly correspond to existing guideline ranges and simply ensure that Federal judges impose the required penalty, but can exercise discretion to a higher penalty if warranted.

Law enforcement officers deserve our fullest protection, brazen criminals show less and less regard for the police and the hard work that they do. Our message is simple: If you attack a police officer or kill a police officer, you will be going to jail for a long time.

As revised, the mandatory minimums are commensurate with existing Federal sentencing guidelines, but in the absence of a mandatory minimum guideline system, there is too much at risk to leave the sentencing to judges who have already demonstrated their willingness to depart from the guidelines when presented with a case.

Mandatory minimum penalties are effective for ensuring consistency in sentencing. Since the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, judges now have virtually unlimited discretion to ignore the Federal sentencing guidelines and impose whatever sentence they like, all to the detriment of public safety and fairness and sentencing through consistent and clear punishment schemes. Judges are now completely unaccountable.

Congress has a duty to set sentencing policies for Federal crimes and to make sure that judges impose such sentences. Unfortunately, that has not been the experience since the Booker decision. Once freed from mandatory sentencing schemes, Federal judges are now starting to ignore the guidelines: In one of every 10 criminal cases, they are imposing sentences below the previously mandated guideline range.

In a recently released report, the Sentencing Commission data confirmed that this trend is continuing, and specifically broke out such data by circuits, which showed that judges in the Second and Ninth Circuits followed the guideline ranges in imposing sentences in a substantially lower percentage than the other circuits. Sentences now for similar crimes are being handed in disparate fashion, depending on the region where the offense occurs. This is not equal justice under the law in the Federal system.

Those judges, when they go to the Supreme Court, ought to look at the motto that is underneath the roof of the Court at the main entrance when they walk in. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

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

I rise in opposition to the Scott amendment which eliminates the death penalty for the killing of a federally funded public safety officer, such as a judge, police officer, firefighter, prosecutor, or a family member of a public safety officer.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 52 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the United States in 2003 and 56 officers were killed in the previous year.

In the 10-year period from 1994 through 2003, a total of 616 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in the United States, 100 of whom were killed in ambush situations, entrapment or premeditated situations. If not for the advent of bulletproof vests, an additional 400 officers would have been killed over the last decade, except for the fact that they were wearing protective armor.

Of those responsible for killing police officers between 1994 and 2003, 521 had a prior criminal arrest, including 153 who had a prior arrest for assaulting a police officer or resisting arrest, 264 for a crime of violence, 230 for a weapons violation, and 23 for murder.

Recent events include the killing of an individual with a grenade in the Seattle Federal courthouse; the killing of Judge Roland Barnes, his deputy sheriff and a Federal agent in Atlanta; the murders of Federal Judge Lefkow's husband and mother; and the murders immediately outside the Tyler, Texas, courthouse.

These recent attacks follow on the heels of the 1998 bombing of Circuit Judge Robert Vance in the 11th Circuit; the 1998 shooting of Judge Daronoco; and the 1979 shooting of Judge Wood outside his San Antonio home.

According to the Administrative Office, there are almost 700 threats a year made against Federal judges, and security detail have had to be assigned to those Federal judges because of the threats of attacks.

The Secure Access bill authorizes, but does not require prosecution of federally funded State and local judges and first responders if there is a threat or an assault against them.

First, jurisdiction only exists when it involves Federal funding and protection of Federal investment.

Second, under current Federal law, the Department of Justice pays survivor benefits to families of first responders who are killed in the line of duty. The Federal interest in minimizing these assaults and murders is obvious and cost-saving.

The intent underlying this provision is to authorize Federal prosecution after State and local prosecutors and Federal prosecutors determine where such prosecution would best be brought. Some States do not have a death penalty and Federal prosecution of a cop killer may be warranted. Federal prosecution may be advantageous over State or local prosecutions for a variety of reasons, such as laws relating to evidence, statute of limitations, or other reasons.

The provisions do not require Federal prosecution, but only add another tool in the arsenal to protect law enforcement officers, judges, and other courthouse personnel.

The need for a swift and effective death penalty is significant in the case of violent offenders who assault and kill law enforcement officers, judges and witnesses. Several scientifically valid statistical studies that examine a period of years and control for national trends consistently show that capital punishment is a substantial deterrent and saves lives. Recent estimates show that each execution deters 18 murders.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a very good amendment. It is not acceptable, but it is something that I enthusiastically support.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. It makes a technical change to section 25 of the bill, and it broadens the eligibility for grants. I think it is a good amendment and urge the committee to adopt it.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support this amendment. I think it plugs a hole in the original bill, and we certainly want to do whatever we can to prevent people from going into gangs and from being threatened if they are witnesses and are sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in criminal trials involving gang members.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

The gentleman from New York is absolutely correct in that there was an oversight in that State and local courts would not be eligible for the four grant programs that the gentleman outlined in his remarks. This amendment corrects the oversight, and I am happy to support it and hope that the committee adopts it.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I support the amendment as well, and I understand why Federal officials who are designating the amendment would feel a need for this. As long as it is optional and as long as it requires training and certification, I think that this is an appropriate thing, to empower those Federal officials designated who feel the need to carry a firearm to be able to do so.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the majority was recently, within the last 2 or 3 minutes, given a copy of this motion to recommit. This comes as a complete surprise. This is not the way to legislate, Mr. Speaker. I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is offered by a Member who stated to the Speaker that he is opposed to this bill. He is opposed to providing additional security to judges, to prosecutors, to witnesses, to victims and their family members. He is opposed to a bill that has been worked on significantly on a bipartisan basis. And he has stated that he is opposed to doing something where there is a crying need, given the threats and the murders in courthouses all around the country, and not just Federal courthouses but State and local courthouses as well.

Now, what does he propose to do in the motion to recommit? He proposes to add additional criminal penalties for things that are already criminal. And all that does is to confuse juries, to confuse prosecutors, to confuse people who are attempting to do business with the government.

Profiteering in an illegal manner is already criminal under the United States Code. We do not need to confuse the issue with an additional statutes. And we do not need to defeat this bill by this motion that has been offered by several proclaimed opponents of this bill.

The bill is a good one. In order to get it passed and signed into law to protect the judicial branch and those who do business and work for it, vote this silly motion down and pass the bill as has been worked out on a bipartisan basis.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

It is, I think, a very clear statement to make that we have faced extensive violence in our courts in recent times. The problem of violence and threats against judges, court officials, employees, witnesses, and victims is not a new one, but one that is growing rapidly.

Recent events, including the killing of a Fulton County judge and other court personnel in Atlanta, the murders of United States district judge Joan Lefkow's family members outside Chicago, Illinois, and the murders immediately outside the Tyler, Texas, courthouse have underscored the increasing significance of the problem.

According to the Administrative Office of United States Courts, there are almost 700 threats a year made against Federal judges; and in numerous cases, Federal judges have had security details assigned to them for fear of attack by members of violent gangs, drug organizations and disgruntled litigants.

With such tragic incidents, Mr. Chairman, we are in collaboration, if you will, on H.R. 1751, at least the premise, the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005.

I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman, for their collaborative efforts, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my colleague, a former judge, and I guess one would say once a judge always a judge, who has taken the leadership on this issue.

None of us would step away from the purpose and the necessity of this legislation. In fact, I am very gratified to have secured an amendment that will allow State courts to establish a threat assessment database similar to that of the U.S. Marshals where they will be able to determine the threat status or situation against a respective court, and then, of course, to hopefully have an amendment that would pass that would provide grants to the highest State courts to be able to disseminate those moneys to create that database and that threat assessment database.

In addition, I would say that this hard work and commitment of Democratic members on the committee have also now provided for offers of grants to State courts so they can make meaningful enhancements to courtroom safety and security.

It provides the U.S. Marshal Service with an additional $100 million over the course of the next 5 years to increase ongoing investigations and expand the protective services it currently offers to members of the Federal judiciary.

It authorizes the Attorney General to establish a grant program for States to establish threat assessment databases.

Even with these valuable improvements, however, the bill still suffers from a number of fatal flaws, specifically its inclusion of 16 mandatory minimum sentences and its establishment of one new death- penalty-eligible offense.

Let me comment briefly on those mandatory sentences. Mandatory minimum penalties have been studied extensively; and the vast majority of available research clearly indicates that they do not, in many instances, work. Among many other things, they have been shown to distort the sentencing process to discriminate against minorities in their application and to waste valuable taxpayer money.

But the real emphasis is, although we are here today to protect our court systems and our court officials and our law enforcement officials, we are also here to recognize the discretion necessary for our courts; and in many instances, the judicial conference itself has indicated its desire to have more discretion in sentencing.

The Judicial Conference of the United States would see the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on individual cases, as well as on the criminal justice system as a whole, and has expressed its deep opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing over a dozen times to Congress, noting that these sentences severely distort and damage the Federal sentencing system. Yes, we must have deterrence, and I have supported enhancements of penalties, adding more time for individuals to serve; but at the same time, we must allow the courts to make that determination.

If heinous acts against our Federal courts have been perpetrated, then that judge hearing that particular case would then have the discretion to yield or to render, along with a jury and a jury trial, the highest sentence; but the mandatory minimum would not be there in place of a judge's discretion.

As I was saying, the Federal sentencing system, the Judicial Conference has said, and the mandatory sentencing undermine the sentencing guideline regimen established by Congress to promote fairness and proportionality and destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging charge and fact plea bargains.

In fact, in a recent letter to members of the Crime Subcommittee regarding H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005, the conference noted that mandatory minimum sentences create the opposite of their intended effect. Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity, and mandatory minimums treat dissimilar offenders in a similar manner, although those offenders can be quite different with respect to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger to society.

So I would suggest that we are united around the necessity of this legislation. We must protect our courts and those officials. I might add that I hope

that we will have further discussion about lawyers who are engaged in the practice of law in cases where they come under particular threats, whether it is in particular the prosecutor who is covered by this or defense lawyers and other lawyers who engage in cases which generate threats against their lives. We might consider hearings that would discuss that propensity.

I might also say that the inconsistent and arbitrary nature of mandatory minimum sentences is made readily apparent by a quick analysis of section 2 of the bill. Section 2 establishes a 1-year mandatory minimum with 10-year maximum criminal penalty for assaulting the immediate family member of a law enforcement officer or judge, if the assault results in bodily injury. However, just a few lines later in the same section, an identical criminal penalty is established for a simple threat.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that as we support this legislation that we also take note of some of the inconsistencies that might warrant consideration as this bill makes its way through the House, through the Senate and, of course, conference.

On the issue of the death penalty, let me suggest these few thoughts. In creating a new death-penalty-eligible offense for anyone convicted of killing a federally funded public safety officer, there is no disagreement in the value of our public safety officer. It is just whether or not in addition to such an offense of death penalty, whether or not a substitute of life imprisonment without parole could have equally been used. Expansion of the use of the Federal death penalty in the current environment seems to warrant consideration.

The public is clearly rethinking the appropriateness of the death penalty in general due to the evidence that it is ineffective in deterring crime and is racially discriminatory and is more often than not found to be erroneously applied.

I know that for a fact in a recent case we had in Texas, Frances Newton, a young woman accused of killing her children and her husband, a horrific and heinous crime, certainly one would suggest that she warrants the ultimate penalty. However, unfortunately, in petitioning to get a new trial on the basis of real definitive new evidence, the courts would not consider such; and, of course, Frances Newton has gone to her death. I believe that she has gone to her death with raising the question of whether or not she was, in fact, innocent or guilty.

In a 23-year comprehensive study of death penalties, 68 percent were found to be erroneously applied. So it is not surprising that 119 people sentenced to death for murder over the past 12 years been completely exonerated of those crimes.

This is a good bill. It would have been even better if we had considered life without parole and considered the viability or the necessity of creating a new eligibility for the death penalty.

I would ask my colleagues to consider this legislation.

Let me begin by saying that I strongly support the need to protect judges and court officials from threats and violence. Despite this fact, I do have major concerns with this bill. For example, H.R. 1751 proposes to add 16 new mandatory minimum sentences to the current criminal code. Mandatory minimum penalties have been studied extensively and the vast majority of available research clearly indicates that they do not work. Among other things, they have been shown to distort the sentencing process, to discriminate against minorities in their application, and to waste valuable taxpayer money.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, which sees the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on individual cases as well as on the criminal justice system as a whole, has expressed its deep opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing over a dozen times to Congress, noting that these sentences ``severely distort and damage the Federal sentencing system . . . undermine the Sentencing Guideline regimen'' established by Congress to promote fairness and proportionality, and ``destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging charge and fact plea bargains.''

In fact, in a recent letter to Members of the Crime Subcommittee regarding H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005,'' the Conference noted that mandatory minimum sentences create ``the opposite of their intended effect.''

Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity. Mandatory minimums treat dissimilar offenders in a similar manner, although those offenders can be quite different with respect to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger to society.

The inconsistent and arbitrary nature of mandatory minimum sentences is made readily apparent by a quick analysis of section 2 of the bill. Section 2 establishes a one year mandatory minimum (with a 10 year maximum criminal penalty) for assaulting the immediate family member of a law enforcement officer or judge--if the assault results in bodily injury. However, just a few lines later in the same section, an identical criminal penalty is established for a simple threat. Thus, the same section of the bill makes two completely different actions, with considerably varying outcomes, subject to the same term of imprisonment.

Furthermore, H.R. 1751 unwisely creates a new death penalty eligible offense for anyone convicted of killing a federally funded public safety officer. Expansion of the use of the federal death penalty in the current environment is patently unwarranted. The public is clearly rethinking the appropriateness of the death penalty, in general, due to the evidence that it is ineffective in deterring crime, is racially discriminatory, and is more often than not found to be erroneously applied. In a 23-year comprehensive study of death penalties, 68 percent were found to be erroneously applied. So, it is not surprising that 119 people sentenced to death for murder over the past 12 years have been completely exonerated of those crimes. Nor is it surprising with that such a lackluster record of death penalty administrations that several states have abolished the death penalty. For example, Connecticut has not executed anyone in 45 years.

Without a doubt, the increasing numbers of innocent people released from death row illustrates the fallibility of the current system. Last year, a University of Michigan study identified 199 murder exonerations since 1989, 73 of them in capital cases. Moreover, the same study found that death row inmates represent a quarter of 1 percent of the prison population but 22 percent of the exonerated.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me simply say that I think we will continue to have discussions as relates to mandatory minimums. I think this bill has great purpose; I think it is important, however, for us to raise those issues.

I will conclude by saying that we have a long way to go in the criminal justice system, and I hope that we will also bring to the floor of the House this whole issue of early release for those who are languishing in prisons. I hope the Good Time Early Release bill for nonviolent prisoners in our Federal prisons who are over 40 years old will have an opportunity for full debate, because they all go hand-in- hand.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his very wise amendment. He comes from a region that has suffered an enormous amount of border violence. But his local officials, in working with the gentleman, has brought this to the Nation's attention.

This amendment will protect witnesses who I think are the crux of solving some of these heinous crimes. I have supported amendments such as this, which include language in legislation that I have which deals with rewarding informants in order to get them to tell the facts that would allow for busting drug cartels and others who are perpetrating violence. This is a wise amendment, and I am happy to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman of the full committee and the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee to allow the amendment that I secured that has to do with providing courts the opportunity to establish a threat assessment database similar to that of U.S. Marshals.

This provides our courts hands-on immediate information in order to determine the threats that are waged against these particular courts. This simple amendment, rather than include the attorney, in essence, the change of this amendment would require the Attorney General to work through the Office of Justice Programs to make grants to the highest State courts in States participating in the Threat Assessment Database program.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished chairman for his support.

Let me conclude by simply saying again I remind colleagues I hope that some day we will be able to discuss the Good Time Early Relief bill that speaks to the question of individuals languishing in Federal prisons who have been nonviolent and would welcome this discussion and this legislation.

I am grateful for this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005. Before doing so, I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the House Judiciary Committee for their efforts on this bill. Let me briefly explain the thrust of my amendment. This amendment is only a small technical change to my original amendment that was adopted during the Full Committee Markup last week. In essence, the change would require the Attorney General to work, through the Office of Justice Programs, to make grants to the highest State courts in States participating in the threat assessment database program.

The rationale for changing the language to make State Supreme Courts eligible for receiving grants for the creation of a threat assessment database is that the State courts are on the ground and have the best understanding of what type of threats are out there and where they are coming from. In addition:

The Department of Justice has interpreted language giving ``grants to States'' as going directly to State executives (Governors) and they have sometimes bypassed the State courts.

The State court administrating agencies (led by the State supreme courts) are in a better position to know about the kind of threats and attacks they experience in a given year.

The State court administrating agencies are in a better position to know how to respond to attacks and develop procedures to counter threats to the State courts.

If the grants go to the State executive, there is a chance that money expended under this program will go to another part of the State budget such as roads or education, not court security.

I respectfully request that my amendment be made in order.

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

Mr. Chairman, can you advise how much time remains?

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1751. With several sensational incidents in recent years involving the murders of judges, family members of judges, court personnel, witnesses and other victims, we have seen the consequences of insufficient security for our court operations and personnel associated with the courts.

All are agreed that enhancement of security for our courts and all persons associated with them is imperative. However, the main focus of this bill is not the things that the courts have asked for to enhance their security, but on extraneous death penalties and mandatory minimum sentences which will do nothing to improve the security of our courts or personnel associated with them.

Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge and thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for making significant improvements in this bill since our initial consideration of the bill in subcommittee, by removing a number of the superfluous mandatory minimum sentences and death penalties from the bill. However, all such provisions were not removed.

The notion that Congress has to direct judges on how to sentence those who harm or threaten judges and their families and others associated with court activities, or that Congress has to replace the States in prosecution of murders of State judges and other State officials is absurd. The kinds of people we are talking about clearly have not been deterred by death penalties and mandatory minimum sentences already on the books and applicable to them for those kinds of crimes, so they certainly will not be deterred by adding more such mandatory minimums. And judges facing such defendants clearly do not need congressional guidance on what the appropriate sentences may be.

Accordingly, I have prepared an amendment which would remove the provisions allowing the Federal Government, simply on the basis of someone's salary being paid in part by Federal funds, to take over traditional State prosecutions of State murder cases. I have also prepared an amendment which would remove the mandatory minimum sentencing in Federal cases involving judges, their family members or other court personnel, and replaced them with higher maximums that would allow even greater sentences than the bill allows in cases which warrant it, but would not require sentences which violate common sense.

The courts have not requested mandatory minimums or death penalties because they do nothing to protect the court. Nevertheless, here we go again with more mandatory minimums and more death penalties. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Federal courts have consistently and loudly expressed their strong opposition to mandatory minimum sentences.

Through rigorous study and analysis, as well as through their everyday experiences in sentencing major players and bit players in crime, the courts have determined mandatory minimums to be less effective than regular sentencing. They have found them to be racially discriminatory in their application. They have found mandatory minimums to waste money compared to traditional sentences, and they have found mandatory minimums to be a violation of common sense.

The Judicial Conference has written us often to express their opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing and has just written us again with this bill to state their opposition to mandatory minimum sentences as a violation of the systemic sentencing scheme designed to ``reduce unwarranted disparity and to provide proportionality and fairness in punishment.'' That idea is violated with mandatory minimums.

The Judicial Conference and everyone concerned supports the grant programs in the bill aimed at strengthening court security and personnel and providing security for persons associated with the courts. Absent mandatory minimums and the extension of the death penalties, this bill would be one that we could all support.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, because of the mandatory minimums and death penalty it is not one we can all support.

Judicial Conference of the

United States,

Washington, DC, November 8, 2005.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Ranking Democrat, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Conyers: On behalf of the Judicial

Conference of the United States, the policy-making body of

the federal judiciary. I am writing to convey its views

regarding several of the provisions contained in H.R. 1751,

the ``Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of

2005.''

Much of the impetus for portions of this bill arose from

the tragic circumstances surrounding the attempted murder of

Judge Joan Lefkow of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois. Although Judge Lefkow survived

the attack, her mother and husband were shot and killed by

the assailant, a disgruntled litigant.

The current bill contains several provisions that are of

particular interest to the federal courts. Section 13 of the

bill requires the U.S. Marshals Service to consult with the

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts regarding the

security requirements of the Judicial Branch. While the

provision does not extend to a requirement that the Marshals

Service ``coordinate'' with the judiciary, we believe the

proposed change is positive and will enhance judicial

security. Section 14 of the bill is positive in that it will

help protect judges from the malicious recording of

fictitious liens and is supported by the Judicial Conference.

Section 16 of the bill is of particular interest to federal

judges and their security because it will allow them to

continue to redact sensitive information from their financial

disclosure forms. Not a day goes by without some unauthorized

incursion into an information database containing personal

information and this provision is an important tool in

protecting such personal information.

Unfortunately, the bill also contains various provisions

that expand the application of mandatory minimum sentences.

The Judicial Conference opposes mandatory minimum sentencing

provisions because they undermine the sentencing guideline

regime Congress established under the Sentencing Reform Act

of 1984 by preventing the systematic development of

guidelines that reduce unwarranted disparity and provide

proportionality and fairness in punishment.

The bill also contains a provision that would allow the

presiding judge, at all levels of the judicial process, to

permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting,

or televising to the public of the court proceedings over

which that judge presides. The Judicial Conference believes

that the circuit councils of each circuit should retain the

authority to establish rules for the photographing,

recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments in their

courts. The Judicial Conference does not support legislation

that would allow trial court judges the discretion to

broadcast their courts' proceedings.

I appreciate having the opportunity to express the views of

the Judicial Conference in relation to H.R., 1751, the

``Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of

2005.'' If you have any questions regarding this legislation

please contact Arthur White at (202) 502-1700.

Sincerely,

Leonidas Ralph Mecham,

Secretary.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is clarifying in nature, and I have no objection. I am not aware of any objection.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates the mandatory minimum sentences in the bill and replaces them with increases in maximum sentences

for which a defendant can be sentenced. This is not a soft-on-crime amendment but a sensible-on-crime amendment. In each instance in which it eliminates a mandatory minimum sentence, it raises the maximum term to which an offender can be sentenced, except in situations where they can already get life.

With the higher maximums, offenders who deserve it can be sentenced to even greater sentences than the bill allows. But those who are bit players in an offense or those who do not deserve as much time as ringleaders, do not have to be sentenced to that time anyway. What sense does it make to sentence an offender to more time than anyone believes they deserve? That is an inevitable result of mandatory minimum sentencing.

The notion that we have to have mandatory minimum sentences to force judges to sentence those who kill, injure or threaten judges or their families or others associated with the courts is obviously absurd. Judges have not asked for mandatory minimum sentences as a protection for themselves and their families. Indeed, they have asked for just the opposite.

Having the experience of sentencing people on an ongoing basis, judges see the differences in activities, roles, backgrounds of the offenders of crime. They know it makes no sense to sentence just on the basis of the name of the crime rather than on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the crime and the level of involvement and background of the offenders. Having heard all the facts and circumstances in the case, they are in a much better position to sentence offenders than Congress is in sentencing offenders with no knowledge of the individual case.

To ensure a systemic approach in sentencing like offenders in a similar manner, we have created the Sentencing Commission and the sentencing guideline system. By increasing the maximums, we signal to the Sentencing Commission to consider increasing the guideline minimums, which they characteristically do when we make such suggestions. The sentencing statistics do not establish that the courts have not followed the guidelines, especially when you take into account that most of the deviations result from government motions, or acquiescences in sentences, and guideline-sanctioned departures. Sentencing is not an exact science and should not be held to rigid statistical measurements.

Some have suggested that mandatory minimum sentencing is necessary because of recent Supreme Court decisions that prevent sentencing increases based on factors not established at the trial. Yet, their positions on mandatory minimum sentences appear to be no different before those cases were decided.

Mandatory minimums have been studied and have been found to disrupt an orderly sentencing scheme, to be discriminatory against minorities, to waste the taxpayers' money when compared to traditional sentencing where individual roles and culpability can be taken into account. If we do not trust judges to sentence offenders sufficient in other cases, the one instance where we should be able to trust judges is in the case where the charge is murder, injury, or threats to judges.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, mandatory minimums are not indicated in this bill, so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and remove the mandatory minimums from the bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate the expansion of the Federal death penalty jurisdiction on the basis of any portion of the salary of a State or local official being covered with Federal funds. That means they could be eligible for a Federal death penalty. The notion that the Federal Government has to replace the States and localities in murder prosecutions against those who would murder a State judge or others associated with a judge or courts is absurd.

States have shown themselves quite capable of prosecuting murder cases and in obtaining death penalties where applicable. They have done far more of it, frankly, than the Federal Government, so there is no indication that this raw extension of Federal power is necessary or even desired. If a State has chosen to represent the will of its citizens by not authorizing a death penalty, why should Congress step in and impose it in spite of the State's public policy choice?

The States certainly have not asked that we add a Federal death penalty to apply to the murder of federally funded State or local officials. And there is no evidence that the kind of people who would kill or plot to kill a State court judge or other officials may be deterred by a Federal death penalty.

The public is clearly rethinking the appropriateness of the death penalty, in general, due to the evidence that it is ineffective in deterring crime, that it is racially discriminatory, and found more often than not to be erroneously applied.

A 23-year comprehensive study of the death penalty found that the death penalty had been erroneously applied 68 percent of the time. So it is not surprising that over 120 people sentenced to death over the last 10 years have been released from death row, having been completely exonerated of the crimes for which they are convicted or otherwise found to be not guilty.

Nor is it surprising that with such a sorry record of death penalty administration, that several States have abolished the death penalty or placed moratoriums on the applications of their death penalty while studies are being conducted, and why some, while they have it on the books, have not applied it in many years.

In recognition of the problems States and localities were having with administering the death penalty, Congress adopted the Innocence Protection Act just a few years ago. It provides funding to State and local entities to help ensure that there is competent counsel at all parts of the trial.

Mr. Chairman, during committee deliberations of the death penalty, we heard references to econometric research of economist Joanna M. Shepherd. I want to point out, more recently, she has done further analysis in elaboration of her research and found, in terms of deterring murders, executions deter murders in six States, have no effect on murders in eight States, and increased murders in 13 States.

Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that the death penalty is arbitrarily applied, it is discriminatory and we make mistakes, I would hope that we would delete the death penalty from this bill by adopting the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from Iowa would respond to a couple of questions. I would ask the gentleman whether or not this applies to Federal officials only; we are not imposing this on State officials.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, also, did the Federal officials ask for this new power?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding that this was in fact their request, in fact, their number one request. Does the gentleman have any evidence or know anything contrary to that?

Reclaiming my time, I would finally ask, is this the right to carry, subject to training and regulation prescribed by the Attorney General? I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

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.