F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 188, I call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 151) to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the sexual exploitation of children, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have the letter that the members of the Congressional Black Caucus sent to Attorney General Janet Reno on August 6, and while they did not ask for a change in the law, what they did ask was for the Justice Department to appeal the sentence. Now, what happened in the Stacey Koon case is that the Court of Appeals agreed with the Justice Department and established de novo review. Mr. Koon's lawyer appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and established the abuse of discretion standard. Now, what this legislation does is to establish the de novo review standard for all crimes should there be a review of the sentence on appeal. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the letter dated August 6, 1993 from members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, August 6, 1993. Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Reno: As members of the Congressional Black Caucus, we are writing to you because of our concern about the sentencing of Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon by Judge John Davies in the Rodney King civil rights case. We are troubled that the sentence for the crime was reduced to 30 months upon the court's consideration of mitigating facts. Such a reduction for mitigating factors may be appropriate in other circumstances. However, we feel that the defendants' special status as police officers, with special duties owed to the public, should have militated against such a significant reduction. As you well know, the maximum possible penalty was ten years and fines of up to $250,000. Your federal prosecutors were asking for seven to nine years. Our federal sentencing guidelines recommended minimum sentences in a range of four to seven years in prison. Instead, Judge John Davies made broad use of subjective factors. He stated that he read only letters addressed to him from the friends and families of Officer Powell and Sergeant Koon. He argued that much of the violence visited on Rodney King was justified by King's own actions. However, these officers were convicted on charges of violating Rodney King's civil rights. We believe these mitigating factors did not justify so large a reduction given the defendants' special responsibilities as police officers. In addition, Judge Davies did not afford proper weight to the racist comments made over police radio by those convicted on the night of the beating in discounting race as a motivation for the beating. He similarly failed to take into account the remarkable lack of remorse shown by Officer Powell and Sergeant Koon since their conviction. People of good will all over this country and of all races were heartened when Officer Powell and Sergeant Koon were convicted by a jury of their peers, a verdict made possible by the Justice Department's resolve to file civil rights charges and by the phenomenal performance of federal prosecutors. With these severely reduced sentences, however, we are sending a mixed message. Are police officers going to be held responsible for excessive use of force or not? We think what has been lost, in all this, is that police officers have an enhanced responsibility to uphold the law. Notwithstanding Judge Davies' authority to modify the sentencing guidelines, most experts agreed that the minimum four to seven years sentence should have been followed in this case. We realize that the trial judge is afforded sufficient latitude in sentencing, but we urge the Department of Justice to appeal these sentences. We need to reexamine these sentences so that justice can finally be done in this difficult, painful case. Only then can we begin to put this behind us. Sincerely, Maxine Waters; Sanford Bishop; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Floyd H. Flake; Albert R. Wynn; Carrie P. Meek; Eva M. Clayton; Major R. Owens; Walter Tucker; William Clay; Charles B. Rangel; William J. Jefferson. James E. Clyburn; Earl Hilliard; Bennie M. Thompson; Cleo Fields; Cynthia McKinney; John Lewis; Corrine Brown; Donald M. Payne; Alcee Hastings; Kweisi Mfume; Louis Stokes; Melvin L. Watt; Ronald V. Dellums. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas asked why we have to have restrictions on downward departures, and I will give her one example. In the case of the United States v. Robert Parish, a defendant who was convicted of possession of child pornography. He was in possession of 1,300 images of child pornography, some of which depicted graphic violent sexual exploitation of very young children. He got a downward departure. The majority of those 1,300 child pornography images which he possessed depicted adolescent girls, including one in which a very young girl, wearing a dog collar around her neck, is having sexual intercourse with an adult male. The defendant was also in the midst of communicating on line with a 15-year-old female high school student when, thankfully, he was arrested. Now, what happened when he was convicted? The sentencing guidelines have a range of 33 to 41 months imprisonment for a conviction of those crimes. The trial court gave him 8 months. The trial court found that the defendant's conduct was outside the typical heartland of these types of cases, and that the defendant was susceptible to abuse in prison. The trial court felt that the combination of factors, including the defendant's ``stature,'' ``demeanor,'' ``naivete,'' and the nature of the offense justified the departure from the minimum of 33 months in the guidelines to just 8 months. This is why we have the restriction on downward departures for sex crimes in this bill. Now, I am a bit puzzled that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) is complaining about the fact that we provide for a de novo review of downward departures for all crimes, not just crimes against children, but all crimes. When this legislation was originally debated on March 27, she voted in favor of it, and I introduced in the Congressional Record a letter signed by a majority of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who were in office at the time asking the Clinton Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Janet Reno, to seek a de novo review of the downward departure that the trial judge gave to Stacey Koon, who is the police officer who was convicted of violating the civil rights of Rodney King. Fortunately, that passed and that is included in this legislation. What we are doing in this legislation on de novo review is exactly what the next speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and those who cosigned this letter, asked the Clinton Justice Department to do. Now, unfortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Koon v. United States, decided that there could only be a review on appeal of a departure from the sentencing guidelines based upon abuse of discretion by the trial judge. We overturn that part of the Koon v. U.S. ruling and allow for de novo review on appeal. Sometimes, maybe, if you ask for something too much, you might get it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this vote is going to be the end of a long period where the provisions of this legislation were carefully considered in the Committee on the Judiciary in the House and in the other body. The compromise that was reached by the conferees is a good compromise. It will make a difference to protect children. It will give parents of abducted children the comfort of knowing that those who have harmed their children are going to be dealt with seriously, as well as setting up the machinery to alert the public and the news media as well as the police to try to find an abducted child and return that child home to his or her parents. This is legislation that deserves all of our support. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this conference report. I hope that the other body will act quickly and that the President of the United States can sign this legislation very promptly because our children will be better protected as a result.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains provisions of H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Protection Act, which overwhelmingly passed the House 410 to 14 less than 2 weeks ago, and the provisions of S. 151, the PROTECT Act of 2003, which passed the other body 84 to nothing on February 24. Over the last several days, during the course of lengthy staff meetings and an open, working meeting of conferees, we have worked diligently to resolve differences between the House and the Senate. I believe we were successful in crafting a bipartisan conference report that recognizes a comprehensive effort is needed to better protect children. In order to accomplish this, the legislation includes provisions to help prevent crimes against children, to assist in the safe recovery of abducted children, to enhance the investigations and prosecutions of these crimes, and to ensure that the offenders are held accountable and unable to repeat these crimes. An abducted child is a parent's worst nightmare. We must assure that law enforcement in our communities have every possible tool to prevent abductions in the first place, and when an abduction occurs, to recover a missing child quickly and safely, and to ensure that the criminal receives sure and swift justice, including an appropriate sentence in prison. The overarching goal of this comprehensive package is to stop those who prey on children before they can harm children. This is accomplished by destroying the illicit markets that encourage exploitation and abduction of children, strengthening penalties to reflect the seriousness of these crimes, halting repeat offenders, and enhancing law enforcement agencies to effectively prevent, investigate and prosecute crimes against children. For instance, this legislation responds to the April 16, 2002, Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition that struck down a 1996 law written to combat computer-generated pornography. As the president for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children stated, ``The Court's decision will result in the proliferation of child pornography in America unlike anything we have seen in more than 20 years.'' Congress has an obligation to prevent the resurgence of the child pornography market. This conference report will help do so by amending the definition of computer-generated child pornography so that it will withstand a constitutional challenge. Additionally, the conference report provides strong support to recover abducted children quickly and safely through a prompt and effective public alert system. Such a system can be the difference between the life and death for that child. To accomplish this, the conference report codifies the AMBER Alert program currently in place in the Departments of Justice and Transportation, and authorizes increased funding to help States deploy a child abduction communication warning network. While our goal must always be to prevent the abduction of the child before it occurs, our communities should also have an effective and responsive AMBER Alert system to assist in the quick and safe return of the kidnapped child. I am happy to report that this compromise legislation doubles the authorized funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Nation's resource center for child protection, to $20 million a year through 2005. The center assists in the recovery of missing children and raises public awareness of ways to protect children from abduction, molestation, and sexual exploitation. Another vital component in the effort to protect children are strong laws that hold the criminal accountable. Those who abduct children are often serial offenders who have already been convicted of similar offenses. Sex offenders and child molesters are four times more likely than any other violent criminal to repeat their offenses against children. This number demands attention, especially in light of the fact that a single child molester on average shatters the lives of over 100 children. Under this legislation, sexual predators will no longer slip through the cracks of the system and harm other children. To this end, the legislation provides a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for non-familial abductions of a child under the age of 18, lifetime supervision for sex offenders, and mandatory life imprisonment for second-time offenders. The compromise legislation restricts the opportunity for pretrial release for crimes of child abduction and sex offenses and extends the statutes of limitation. Finally, this conference report contains provisions to address the long-standing and growing problem of downward departures from the Federal sentencing guidelines. Outrageously, between 1996 and 2001, U.S. courts have lowered the sentences of one out of every five of those convicted of sexually abusing a child or sexually exploiting a child through child pornography. Strong sentencing is an essential component in any effort to fight crimes against children. All of our efforts in this bill and in previous anticrime measures are fruitless if, at the end of the day, judges are permitted to give offenders a slap on the wrist, which is exactly what is happening today with increased frequency. I am proud of the efforts of the conferees to quickly send this legislation to the President. It was a fair and open process, and the exhaustive negotiations yielded extensive changes to the base text of the legislation that passed the House. Most of these changes were made to accommodate the concerns of my colleagues in the minority party, both in the Senate and in the House. I am extremely proud of the extraordinary effort my now-weary staff expended to help craft this conference report and to get to it the floor today. I would like to extend special thanks to Sean McLaughlin, Will Moschella, Beth Sokul, Jay Apperson and Katy Crooks of the Committee on the Judiciary staff. Their dedication is greatly appreciated. The bottom line is that this comprehensive legislative package will crack down on child abductors, build and expand on the work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, give Federal authorities additional tools to prevent and solve these horrific crimes, and provide meaningful sentencing reform for all crimes. I urge my colleagues to protect America's children from the worst predators in our society by supporting this bipartisan child protection legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit guts the entire bill by preventing the dismissal of pending lawsuits. Much of the harm this bill addresses is caused by pending lawsuits. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can require that pending lawsuits can be dismissed if it is pursuant to a national economic policy. A bill that aims to save the national firearms industry from bankruptcy due to pending lawsuits is an enactment pursuant to a national economic policy. Certainly saving an industry from bankruptcy that is essential to preserving a constitutionally protected right to bear arms under Congress's Commerce Clause authority is constitutional. If this motion to recommit passes, all that would happen is that hundreds of additional cases would be filed right before the date of enactment. This motion to recommit would therefore make the current situation much worse and further endanger all of our fundamental rights to bear arms. I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the proponents of this bill have stated time and time again that courts have determined that those who file lawsuits against the firearms industry are doing so because they want to bankrupt the industry. They want to bankrupt the industry through legal fees, and even though they might not win their cases in court, there is no reimbursement for the defense costs that have to be run up once a lawsuit is filed. Now, anybody who uses a firearm for illegal purposes, we should throw the book at. I certainly support what has gone on in Richmond in Project Exile, and I hope we can give the Justice Department enough money to extend Project Exile nationwide. I also strongly support the InstaCheck system that is designed to keep firearms out of the hands of people who have not been lawfully able to possess those firearms for over 70 years, convicted felons, adjudicated mental incompetents and some other people. But we should not use the judicial process to bankrupt an industry that produces a legal product. If you do not like the product, introduce a bill here to make it illegal. I will vote against it, but at least you can deal with that directly through the democratic process, rather than going through the back door and trying to get the courts to do what legislatures and the Congress have failed to do.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, logic and fairness dictate that manufacturers and sellers should not be held responsible for the unlawful use of their lawful products. H.R. 1036 will stop ludicrous lawsuits against the manufacturer or seller of firearms for harm resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products by prohibiting such lawsuits from being filed in State or Federal court. H.R. 1036, which has significant bipartisan support, does not preclude lawsuits against a person who transfers a firearm or ammunition knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. It also does not prevent lawsuits against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se. The bill also includes several additional exceptions, including an exception for actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully violates any State or Federal statute applicable to sales or marketing when such violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. Other exceptions include actions for breach of contract or warranty and an exception for actions for damages resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture. Recent litigation against the tobacco industry that forced multibillion dollar settlements has inspired lawsuits against a much smaller firearms industry on theories of liability that would hold it financially responsible for the harm caused, through no fault of its own, by those who criminally misuse its products. While some of these lawsuits have been dismissed, and some States have acted to limit them in one way or another, the fact remains that these lawsuits continue to be aggressively pursued. Such lawsuits threaten to rip tort law from its moorings in personal responsibility and drive firearms manufacturers out of business. John Coale, one of the personal injury lawyers suing the gun industry, told the Washington Post, ``The legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry.'' The police, along with our military, also rely on the domestic firearms industry to supply them with reliable and accurate weapons that can best protect them in the line of fire. The best and most reliable guns are not going to be those designed under requirements personal injury attorneys seek to impose in firearms lawsuits. Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process. Various courts have correctly described such suits as ``improper attempts to have the court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature.'' As explained by another Federal judge, ``The plaintiff's attorneys simply want to eliminate handguns.'' Under the currently unregulated tort system, personal injury lawyers are seeking to obtain through the courts stringent limits on the sale and distribution of firearms beyond the court's jurisdictional boundaries. Such State lawsuits in a single county could destroy a national industry and deny citizens nationwide the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution. Insofar as these lawsuits have the practical effect of burdening interstate commerce in firearms, Congress has the authority to act under the commerce clause of the Constitution. In 1985, one Federal judge said it would be nonsensical to claim that a product can be defective under the law when it has no defect. He predicted that the plaintiff's unconventional application of tort law against such a product would also apply to automobiles, knives and even high-calorie food. In 1999, another judge observed that cities suing the firearms industry ``have envisioned the dawning of a new age of litigation during which the gun industry, liquor industry, and purveyors of junk food would follow the tobacco industry in reimbursing government expenditures.'' Only a few years later, that disastrous new age of litigation is already upon us, and even once-fanciful lawsuits against fast food companies are rapidly proliferating. Congress must do what it can to stop the slide down this slippery slope. It is time for Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty and exercise its authority under the commerce clause to prevent a few State courts from bankrupting the national firearms industry and denying all Americans their fundamental right to bear arms. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) to show the bipartisan nature of the support for this bill. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) to show the continued bipartisan support for this bill.

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. 1036 to be considered later.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today, H.R. 1463 contains several provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on the Judiciary as provided in Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 108th Congress. The Committee on the Judiciary would normally proceed under regular order to examine legislation containing such provisions within our jurisdiction and take appropriate actions in Committee meetings. However, the Bush Administration has maintained that there is a pressing need for this legislation's swift passage in order to provide first responders and other emergency personnel with all due encouragement and assurances to participate in ongoing smallpox vaccinations. Because of the exigent circumstances, the Committee on the Judiciary, like the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Education and the Workforce, has elected not to hold a hearing or markup on this legislation and has allowed it to proceed for consideration by the full House. The Committee's deferral of action should not be interpreted as any lack of jurisdiction over or interest in H.R. 1463. The primary purpose of the bill is to establish a compensation program for emergency personnel directed to receive smallpox vaccines pursuant to authorities granted by the 107th Congress in legislation establishing a Department of Homeland Security. This new program is to be established under the Public Health Service Act and is to be under the direction and control of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The bulk of the provisions in Section 2 of H.R. 1463 dedicated to establishing the new compensation program are outside the scope of the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction. However, H.R. 1463 also contains provisions related to judicial review of determinations made by the Secretary of HHS under the Act and provisions modifying existing statutes concerning the liability of the United States and remedies available under the Federal Tort Claims Act (Chapter 171 and section 1346(b) of Title 28 United States Code) for covered persons suffering injury resulting from smallpox vaccinations. These provisions are clearly within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. For example, Section 2 of H.R. __ adds new provisions titled ``(e) Review of Determination'' that affects the role of the courts and established review procedures mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act--both within the Committee's jurisdiction. Furthermore, Section 3 of H.R. 1463 amends 42 U.S.C. Sec. 233(p) to assume liability for the government relative to a new category of acts and omissions by those acting within the scope of their duties as part of the smallpox vaccination program. Section 3 of the bill also modifies the requirements for exhaustion of remedies, statute of limitations, offsets, and exclusivity of relief available for tort claims in federal district courts arising from smallpox vaccinations administered under a declaration by the Secretary of HHS. These provisions of H.R. 1463 are also clearly within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. If the Committee on the Judiciary had the luxury of unlimited time, we would certainly seek the normal referral of H.R. 1463 to examine these and other provisions further and consider any appropriate changes. However, as I stated earlier, the Administration has pleaded the need for swift passage and implementation of this new compensation program to encourage necessary smallpox vaccinations. The Administration and many of my colleagues believe that the importance of these vaccinations to the security of our homeland against biological attack outweighs considerations about the normal legislative process in this case. I do not dispute that assessment, and therefore as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary I have agreed that this bill should move forward in an expedited fashion without the normal review by our Committee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Florida for proposing an excellent amendment. Let me say I am really puzzled that my friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is opposing this amendment. Back in 1992, there was a citizen of Los Angeles County named Rodney King that was beaten up by a bunch of police officers. Those police officers were tried and convicted of a civil rights violation in a Federal Court. The judge there had a downward departure from the sentence that Police Officer Koon would have received, which would have been 70 to 87 months under the sentencing guidelines. The District Court said, as a result of the widespread publicity and emotional outrage which would have surrounded this case, the officers were particularly likely to be targets of abuse in prison, had they been burdened by having been subjected to successive State and Federal prosecutions. So Mr. Koon only got 30 months in prison, when the guidelines required 70 to 87 months in prison. Now, the Congressional Black Caucus sent a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno; and that was reported in the August 13, 1993, edition of the Los Angeles Times. The Black Caucus, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and 24 other members of the CBC wrote the Attorney General asking that this be appealed. The government did appeal that sentence and won its case in the Appeals Court, and the Appeals Court held that there should be a de novo review of the sentence. Then there was an appeal to the United States Supreme Court which reversed the Appeals Court and said that the only time a district judge's departure from sentencing guidelines could be reviewed and reversed was if there was an abuse of discretion. There is a provision in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) that does precisely what the Congressional Black Caucus asked for almost 10 years ago, and that is to give appeals courts de novo review over sentencing guidelines. So I am puzzled at the gentleman from Virginia's opposition. We are doing what he asked for, but maybe 10 years too late. Now, I think it is outrageous that one out of every five cases of those convicted of sexually abusing a child or sexually exploiting a child through child pornography have received a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. The law says this is supposed to be rare, but, instead, a 20 percent downward departure rate is not rare. Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Florida plugs this loophole. It ought to be passed. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the August 6, 1993, letter from the Congressional Black Caucus to the Attorney General of the United States. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, August 6, 1993. Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Reno: As members of the Congressional Black Caucus, we are writing to you because of our concern about the sentencing of Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon by Judge John Davies in the Rodney King civil rights case. We are troubled that the sentence for the crime was reduced to 30 months upon the court's consideration of mitigating facts. Such a reduction for mitigation factors may be appropriate in other circumstances. However, we feel that the dependents' special status as police officers, with special duties owned to the public, should have mitigated against such a significant reduction. As you well know, the maximum possible penalty was ten years and fines of up to $250,000. Your federal prosecutors were asking for seven to nine years. Our federal sentencing guidelines recommended minimum sentences in a range of four to seven years in prison. Instead, Judge John Davies made broad use of subjective factors. He stated that he read only letters addressed to him from the friends and families of Officer Powell and Sergeant Koon. He argued that much of the violence visited on Rodney King was justified by King's own actions. However, these officers were convicted on charges of violating Rodney King's civil rights. We believe these mitigating factors did not justify so large a reduction given the defendant's special responsibilities as police officers. In addition, Judge Davies did not afford proper weight to the racist comments made over police radio by those convicted on the night of the beating in discounting race as a motivation for the beating. He similarly failed to take into account the remarkable lack of remorse shown by Officer Powell and Sergeant Koon since their conviction. People of good will all over this country and of all races were heartened when Officer Powell and Sergeant Koon were convicted by a jury of their peers, a verdict made possible by the Justice Department's resolve to file civil rights charges and by the phenonemal performance of federal prosecutors. With these severely reduced sentences, however, we are sending a mixed message. Are police officers going to be held responsible for excessive use of force or not? We think what has been lost, in all this, is the police officers have an enhanced responsibility to upheld the law. Notwithstanding Judge Davies' authority to modify the sentencing guidelines, most experts agreed that the minimum four to seven years sentence should have been followed in this case. We realize that the trial judge is afforded sufficient latitude in sentencing, but we urge the Department of Justice to appeal these sentences. We need to reexamine these sentences so that justice can finally be done in this difficult, painful case. Only then can we begin to put this behind us. Sincerely, Maxine Waters, Eva M. Clayton, Sanford Bishop, Major R. Owens, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Walter Tucker, Floyd H. Flake, William Clay, Albert R. Wynn, Charles B. Rangel, Carrie P. Meek, William J. Jefferson, James E. Clyburn, Donald M. Payne, Earl Hilliard, Alcee Hastings, Bennie M. Thompson, Kweisi Mfume, Glee Fields, Louis Stokes, Cynthia McKinney, Melvin L. Watt, John Lewis, Ronald V. Dellums, Corrine Brown.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman's amendment is a very constructive amendment. I urge the committee to adopt it.