F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1368, the United States Parole Commission Extension and Sentencing Commission Authority Act of 2005. This bill extends the Parole Commission for an additional 3 years and provides the Sentencing Commission with authority to adopt emergency guideline changes for obstruction of justice and anabolic steroids offenses. Congress initially created the Parole Commission in 1976. However, with the creation of Federal sentencing guidelines, the Parole Commission was slated to expire 5 years after the new sentencing system was implemented. Since the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Congress has extended the Parole Commission on several occasions. Without further congressional action, the Parole Commission is currently scheduled to expire on October 31, 2005. The Parole Commission is responsible for handling parole cases for offenders who were sentenced prior to the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which created the Sentencing Commission, and eventually led to the elimination of Federal parole for offenders sentenced after 1987. Additionally, in 1997, the Parole Commission was assigned responsibility for supervising offenders in the District of Columbia, which were previously supervised by the D.C. Board of Parole. Enacting this bill is necessary in order for the Parole Commission to continue to carry on these important functions. The provisions in this bill relating to the Sentencing Commission's authority are needed to ensure that the Commission can expeditiously adopt new sentencing guidelines pursuant to two laws enacted during the previous Congress. Under this legislation, the Sentencing Commission will have 60 days to implement the new sentencing guidelines of section 6703 of the Intelligence Reform Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which increases penalties for obstruction of justice offenses involving international or domestic terrorism. Additionally, this legislation directs the Commission within 180 days to amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the seriousness of steroid offenses in accordance with the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. Granting emergency amendment authority to the Commission in these two areas will permit the Commission to promulgate appropriate amendments as quickly as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1368) to extend the existence of the Parole Commission, and for other purposes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I will make the same offer I have made to others. This is a great amendment, and we are happy to accept it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment, but I think it needs a little bit of work on it. I am concerned about the drafting and application of the provision and am concerned about what might be construed as, quote, personally identifiable information of a person who is under age 18. The amendment requires clarification of these issues, but I am willing to work with my colleague on this amendment to possibly modify or clarify the language at a conference later on. So I am prepared to accept the amendment and hope that it passes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a poison pill to a very good and strongly supported bill; and regardless of whether or not one favors or opposes the Federal hate crimes law, I would ask the membership not to put highly controversial legislation of this nature on a bill that has attracted such strong and bipartisan support. Earlier today, when we were considering the bill granting immunity from civil liability to Good Samaritans who are going down to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, the Members of the minority party complained about the fact that there had been no hearings, there had been no committee consideration of this legislation, which is arguably of an emergency nature. There have been no hearings. There have been no markups to this legislation, and we are talking about a major amendment to the Federal Criminal Code, one that poses constitutional problems of double jeopardy and whether Congress is exceeding its constitutional authority, which is something that should go through the regular order. I do not think the changes to the criminal code should be taken lightly. Statistics on hate crimes prosecution should be fully considered in a very thoughtful way, including testimony that scholars have presented that says that hate crimes legislation actually increases those types of crimes, rather than decreases them. We also should consider the case of United States v. Morrison, where the Supreme Court considered whether or not section 8 of the Commerce Clause or section 5 of the 14th amendment would allow Congress to enact a Federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence. There the Supreme Court said the Congress did not have the constitutional authority to do that. I think both on the merits and on the process and on the practicalities of putting a controversial piece of legislation such as this amendment on a bill that has attracted broad and bipartisan support, this amendment should be strongly rejected. Do not kill the bill with this amendment. Vote it down.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendments. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia's opposition to both mandatory minimum penalties and the death penalty is well-known and respected. I believe in this case he is wrong. First of all, we do need to have a swift and effective death penalty in the case of violent offenders who murder children. There have been several scientifically balanced, statistical studies that consistently show that the death penalty is a deterrent; and I think that if it is just a little bit of a deterrent when we are dealing with our kids, that is enough to say that the amendment should be defeated. Secondly, we have talked quite a bit about mandatory minimum penalties in the context of the previous amendment that was offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis). Let me say that if all mandatory minimum penalties contained in this bill for sexual abuse and exploitation of children are eliminated, it does allow judges to send out into society on probation people who have been convicted of sex offenses for or against children. When I think of anybody who does something like that, we should tell society and those who might be thinking of committing such a crime that if you do the crime, you are sure to do some time. I kind of listened with interest and with respect to the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) on mandatory minimums in the previously debated amendment. He says that if judges do not comply with sentencing guidelines, then maybe what Congress should do is impeach them. Impeachment is a severe penalty, and if you look at the 17 impeachments that the House of Representatives has voted on in its history, the only time where there has been an impeachment voted is when a Federal civilian official ends up conducting himself or herself in a manner that obstructs the functioning of government, whether it is the branch that that official serves in or the other two equal and separate branches. Simply saying that if a judge makes a discretionary call to give a child sex offender probation even when the crime is terrible is an impeachable offense I do not think comports with the history of impeachment, because it is within the discretion of the court. I am saying that, in this case, the discretion of the court should be eliminated and those who are convicted should go to jail, and that is why the mandatory minimums ought to stay in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment en bloc.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment sounds good to me, and I am happy to accept this amendment as well.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman has an instructive amendment, and I am prepared to support it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is a constructive addition to the bill. It might need a little fine-tuning regarding the structure of the office, but we can do that in conference. I urge the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be happy to accept his amendment. I think it makes a useful addition to the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as with the previous amendment, I believe this amendment also improves the bill, and I would urge support of it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3132, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, cross-references, punctuation and indentation, and to make other technical and conforming changes necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 208) recognizing the 50th anniversary of Rosa Louise Parks' refusal to give up her seat on the bus and the subsequent desegregation of American society.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).