F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. 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. 744, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the principal author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 744) to amend title 18, United States Code, to discourage spyware, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1760 to designate the postal facility at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin, as the ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building.'' A man of the people, Bob La Follette captured the hearts and minds of Wisconsin's citizens and rose to a place of distinction in the history of my State and this Nation. His storied political career began as a Republican when he was elected District Attorney of Dane County in 1880. ``Fighting Bob,'' as he would become known, served right here in the House of Representatives from 1885 to 1891. Although he was defeated for re-election in 1890, Fighting Bob returned to his law practice and demonstrated the resilience for which he developed a sterling reputation. After two failed attempts for the Governorship, La Follette was elected Wisconsin's twentieth Governor in 1990. During his three terms as Governor in the early 1900's, La Follette led the State out of debt and earned a reputation as a skilled orator and a champion of the people. Fighting Bob returned to Washington in 1906 following his election to the U.S. Senate, where he served until his death in 1925 at 70 years of age. It is no accident that one of my State's two statues prominently displayed in Statuary Hall is dedicated to ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette. He served Wisconsin and the United States honorably. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Bob La Follette by supporting this resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2005, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the twenty-six preceding years I have served in the Congress. 2005 DISCLOSURE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Assets ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Real property: Single family residence at 609 Ft. Williams Parkway, $1,280,700.00 City of Alexandria, Virginia, at assessed valuation. (Assessed at $1,134,600). Ratio of assessed to market value: 100% (Unencumbered)................... Condominium at N76 W14726 North Point Drive, Village 121,600.00 of Menomonee Falls, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at assessor's estimated market value. (Unencumbered)... Undivided 25/44ths interest in single family 698,579.54 residence at N52 W32654 Maple Lane, Village of Chenequa, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at 25/44ths of assessor's estimated market value of $1,229,500.....

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am sure the President of Honduras would have loved to have kept the person who killed the 26 people in his country there and tried him and punished him there; but the fact of the matter is, the borders are leaky. Some of us have been trying to ensure the security of the borders through various measures, like the REAL ID Act, which has been signed. I would hope that that concern would spread as we deal with other immigration matters such as the numbers of border patrol people that we need to put on the border. I support this amendment because it creates enhanced penalties for illegal aliens or those ordered deported on the grounds of having committed a crime who subsequently commit a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime. An illegal alien who commits a drug-trafficking crime or crime of violence would receive a consecutive sentence of 5 years, and an alien who previously has been deported for a crime and subsequently commits a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime would receive a consecutive sentence of 15 years. In addition, the amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to provide the National Crime Information Center with information on illegal aliens. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, another good amendment has been offered, and I would urge the Committee to adopt that, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would essentially strip the bill of vital and necessary weapons that prosecutors and law enforcement need to win the war against violent gangs. In particular, and I ask that everyone pay close attention to this, the amendment would eliminate increased penalties and mandatory minimum penalties for the following crimes: interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering, carjacking and illegal gun transfers to drug traffickers or violent criminals, murder for hire or other felony crimes of violence, violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity, murder or other violent crimes committed by drug traffickers and multiple interstate murderers. These people belong in jail. Just listen to the types of crimes that the mandatory minimums and enhanced penalties apply to. When considering this amendment, it is important to recognize just how much of a problem gangs represent today. Just take the City of Chicago. The U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald, testified and described the gang problem in Chicago: ``It is easy to underestimate the grip that gangs have on some of our cities, but the sad reality is that their grip on urban life is lethal. First, the sheer number of gang members is staggering. In Chicago alone, there are estimated to be 70,000 to 100,000 gang members, compared with about 13,000 Chicago police officers. Several ``super gangs'' dominate: The Gangster Disciples, the Black Disciples, the Vice Lords, the Black P Stones, the Mickey Cobras, the Latin Kings, the Spanish Cobras, the Maniac Latin Disciples and the Satan Disciples. All of these gangs control large amounts of territory, engage in large-scale drug trafficking and use gun violence to control their territory and drug trade.'' Unfortunately, my colleagues ignore the practical reality of this problem by trying to take away new and valuable tools for law enforcement and prosecutors such as mandatory minimum penalties. U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald again explained, ``It is important to maintain heavy penalties on gang members, particularly higher-echelon members and those engaging in violence, to deter violent activity and to leverage cooperation from gang members who are already conditioned to understand they will do some prison time but often cooperate when faced with heavier prison time. Cases against gangs proceed most effectively when the heavy penalties cause key members of the gang to work with authorities to dismantle the organization. Ultimately, severe sentencing of gang members results more quickly in greater freedom for the community victimized by the gangs.'' Heavy penalties mean more cooperation to people on the fringes. Mandatory minimum penalties and heavier sentences result in more quickly and greater freedom for the community victimized by the gangs. This amendment is the anti-community freedom amendment and should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the gentleman's amendment. It provides an authorization for a program that already has been funded by the Committee on Appropriations. It is a good amendment. It helps the bill out. I urge Members to vote for it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the original manager's amendment said if the parent accompanied the juvenile, the juvenile did not have to have the note. What this modification does is to require the juvenile to continue having the note.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this bill seem to zero in on two things. First of all, they are opposed to mandatory minimum sentences. People may have a philosophical disagreement on mandatory minimum sentences, but it seems to me that given the violence of gang activity, the number of murders, the number of maimings, that a mandatory minimum sentence is absolutely necessary to get these people off the streets if the twelve persons on the jury believe that that defendant has committed those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. The other thing we hear from the opponents is, they dust off the same old tired arguments that we need more and more spending on prevention programs, but no one has proven they work. Let us take a look at the facts. Violent crime rates over the last 30 years have dropped dramatically, by almost 50 percent. At the same time, tough new determinant sentencing schemes have been enacted by Congress, including mandatory minimums, truth-in-sentencing programs and other sentencing schemes where criminals go to jail for a specified period of time after their conviction. Prison populations have grown, and crimes have gone down. The logic is clear. We have to incarcerate and incapacitate the violent criminals in our society. We have done so and must continue to do so. This bill does that. When we talk about spending more on prevention, consider these facts: Conservative estimates show that the Department of Justice has already spent over $2 billion, that is with a ``B,'' of the taxpayers' dollars between fiscal years 2001 through 2004 on juvenile and gang prevention programs. From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2005, Congress has appropriated $3.3 billion of the taxpayers' dollars for juvenile justice programs within the Department of Justice. Have they worked? This is yet to be proven, because juvenile gang violence is on the rise. The percentage of homicides committed by gangs has risen, and the number of juveniles committing gang murders has also risen. So let me say that, if $3.3 billion over the last 6 years in intervention and prevention programs has not turned around this type of crime when other crime has gone down, maybe the time to throw the book at those who are engaged in juvenile gang violence is at hand. That is why this bill ought to pass. I urge the membership to vote aye.

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

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. 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. 1279 to be considered shortly.