F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer this manager's amendment to correct and clarify several provisions of the legislation. Let me briefly summarize the changes made by the amendment, as modified. First, the amendment would exclude property crimes from the crime of violence definition of the gang crime statute created by this legislation. The purpose of this change is to ensure that the gang crime statute is applied as intended to dismantle and disrupt violent gangs and to prevent unintended application of the statute for property crimes. Second, the amendment would add conspiracies as a criminal violation and increase criminal penalties for any such violation under section 1952 of title 18, Interstate and Foreign Travel in Aid of Racketeering Enterprises. Third, the manager's amendment would ensure that a portion of title 18 under existing law, which was inadvertently omitted from the introduced and reported versions of H.R. 1279, is not changed as a result of enacting this legislation. Fourth, the amendment would clarify the crime of violence definition under section 16(b) of title 18 to include an act that by its nature creates a substantial risk that physical injury may result to a person or property of another. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. She has got a second good amendment. I urge the Committee to approve it and allow her to leave batting 2 for 2.

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

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam Chairman, I deeply respect the arguments that have been advanced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). He put forth his proposal in committee, and it was defeated on a rollcall vote of 3 ayes to 22 noes. So the Schiff proposal did not even carry a majority of the Democratic members in the committee, let alone the Republican members. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who is also a sponsor of this bill.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005. This bill is a forward-looking and comprehensive approach to a growing national threat: violent and vicious criminal gangs in our communities. According to the last National Youth Gang Survey, there are now between 750,000 and 850,000 gang members in our country. Every city in the country with a population of 250,000 or more has reported gang activity. There are over 25,000 gangs in more than 3,000 jurisdictions in the United States. Criminal gangs are no longer just a local problem. In recent years, gangs have become nationally-organized criminal syndicates. They are disciplined criminal enterprises with leaders, managers and employees, with training and structured associations, many of which are now international in scope. They are dedicated to enriching themselves through criminal activity and terrorizing our communities. The law- abiding public and State and local law enforcement have sent us a strong message: Act now and stop the scourge of violence in our communities. This legislation has four broad and significant purposes. First, the bill authorizes the creation of anti-gang task forces that will bring together Federal, State and local law enforcement to conduct complex and significant gang prosecutions and provide a national infrastructure for the sharing of gang information nationwide. Second, the bill creates a new gang crime statute, akin to the RICO statute, that addresses specific techniques and criminal strategies used by the gangs. Third, the bill increases penalties and clarifies several existing statutes for crimes typically committed by gangs. Fourth, the bill adopts a limited measure to permit Federal prosecutors to charge 16- and 17-year-olds in Federal court without going through a lengthy and outdated transfer procedure. Current law has hindered law enforcement efforts to incapacitate violent 16- and 17-year-old gang members in aggravated crimes of violence. I would like to underscore one important aspect of this bill. It adopts new mandatory minimum penalties that address the seriousness of violent crimes committed by gang members. For kidnapping, maiming and aggravated sexual abuse, gang members will be subject to a 30-year mandatory minimum. For assaults resulting in serious bodily injury; that is, nearly killing or permanently disabling a person, gang members will face a mandatory minimum of 20 years, and for all other gang crimes, gang members will face a 10-year mandatory minimum penalty. The mandatory minimums contained in this legislation are carefully tailored to deter and disrupt violent gang activity as swiftly as possible. These mandatory minimum penalties reflect Congress's duty to ensure that violent gang members are consistently and fairly incarcerated. Further, prosecutors and law enforcement will tell you that in the absence of mandatory guidelines, such penalties are the only way to secure the cooperation of lower-level gang members who have critical information about the tightly-knit gang structure and gang crimes to testify and cooperate against higher-level gang members who typically insulate themselves from the day-to-day criminal activity. Gang members who wish to avoid the mandatory minimum penalty can do so by freely and willingly deciding to cooperate against other gang members. Madam Chairman, I wish to take a minute to underscore the support for this measure from law enforcement, and by that, I mean the brave men and women who are on the streets every day putting their lives on the line to fight the gang epidemic in our country. Since this measure was introduced, we have received strong letters of support from organizations representing State and local law enforcement agencies across our country, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the National Association of Police Officers, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, the National Troopers Coalition, the Major County Chief Association, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the Association For Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the District Attorney for New Orleans, the California Gang Investigators Association and the International Union of Police Associations. When law enforcement speaks with such a clear and unanimous voice, we have a duty to listen, to act now and to give their members the tools and resources they need to fight and win this battle on behalf of America's law-abiding citizens. I want to thank my two colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for their strong and committed leadership on this issue. They have dedicated both time and effort to H.R. 1279 and should be commended for their focus on combating this disturbing national trend. I urge my colleagues to support this vital public safety legislation. Tough, determinate sentencing policies have worked to reduce crime in the last 20 years, and now, we are facing a new challenge. Gang violence is a growing national scourge that requires a tough and measured response. Stiff penalties and additional resources to law enforcement will send a clear and unmistakable message to the violent criminal gang members that their conduct will no longer be tolerated. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the material that is on page 20 relates to a clarification of the ban on possession of hand guns by juveniles. It appears to me that the clarification does not clarify the statute. The best thing to do is to completely remove the clarification as was proposed, thus leaving the current law intact, which means that if a juvenile possesses a hand gun, he will have to have a written note stating that he is authorized to do so from his parent.

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

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, 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I thank him for his hard work on this conference report. As many in this Chamber know, this conference report contains the provisions of the Real ID Act, which I offered, and the House overwhelmingly approved earlier this year. The sensible reforms contained in this legislation are long overdue and will make America safer. These provisions will hamper the ability of terrorists and criminal aliens to move freely through our society by requiring that all States' prior proof of lawful presence in the U.S. for their driver's licenses be accepted as identification for Federal purposes, such as boarding a commercial airplane, entering a Federal building or a nuclear power plant. This legislation will also require a temporary driver's license issued to a foreign visitor to expire when their visa expires, with the maximum term of 1 year. The legislation will also prevent the ability of potentially dangerous aliens to show up under false pretenses on our shores and be granted safe haven, while simultaneously protecting those who are legitimately fleeing persecution. Finally, the legislation will also ensure that the security and integrity of our border is not imperiled by endless and frivolous litigation. I would also note that there are several immigration- related provisions included in the report by the other body that enjoy broad support from this House. One will provide that aliens who have received H-2B visas issued to work in temporary or seasonal jobs in any of the last 3 years shall not be counted toward the 2005 or 2006 quotes when applying for an H-2B visa during the next 2 years. Another amendment expands immigrant visas available for aliens who serve as nurses or physical therapists. I wish to thank the House leadership, the White House, and many Members of both Chambers who rightly recognized the importance of the Real ID Act and supported its inclusion in this conference report.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would refer the gentleman to the statement made by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) that is on the bottom of page 84 which talks about the potential of sexual predators.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, his side has the right to close as the proponents of the resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, just me to close.

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