109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–74 

GANG DETERRENCE AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT 

OF 2005 

MAY 5, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 

Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1279] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1279) to amend title 18, United States Code, to reduce violent 

gang crime and protect law-abiding citizens and communities from 

violent criminals, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 9 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 9 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 17 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 18 

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 18 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 22 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 22 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 22 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 25 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 25 

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 25 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 27 

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 48 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 279 

2 

THE AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act 

of 2005’’. 

TITLE I—CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS AND ENHANCED PENALTIES TO DETER AND PUNISH 

ILLEGAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY AND RELATED CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS 

SEC. 101. REVISION AND EXTENSION OF PENALTIES RELATED TO CRIMINAL STREET GANG 

ACTIVITY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 26 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read 

as follows: 

‘‘CHAPTER 26—CRIMINAL STREET GANGS 

‘‘Sec. 

‘‘521. Criminal street gang prosecutions. 

‘‘§ 521. Criminal street gang prosecutions 

‘‘(a) STREET GANG CRIME.—Whoever commits, or conspires, threatens or attempts 

to commit, a gang crime for the purpose of furthering the activities of a criminal 

street gang, or gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in such a 

gang, shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under this title—

‘‘(1) if the gang crime results in the death of any person, be sentenced to 

death or life in prison; 

‘‘(2) if the gang crime is kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, or maiming, 

be imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 30; 

‘‘(3) if the gang crime is assault resulting in serious bodily injury (as defined 

in section 1365), be imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 20; 

and 

‘‘(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any term of years not less 

than 10. 

‘‘(b) FORFEITURE.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The court, in imposing sentence on any person convicted 

of a violation of this section, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of any provision of State law, that such person shall forfeit to the United States such person’s interest in—

‘‘(A) any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, 

to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, the violation; and 

‘‘(B) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person 

obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the violation. 

‘‘(2) APPLICATION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.—Subsections (b), (c), (e), 

(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), and (p) of section 413 of the Controlled 

Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853) shall apply to a forfeiture under this section as 

though it were a forfeiture under that section. 

‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—The following definitions apply in this section: 

‘‘(1) CRIMINAL STREET GANG.—The term ‘criminal street gang’ means a formal 

or informal group or association of 3 or more individuals, who commit 2 or more 

gang crimes (one of which is a crime of violence other than an offense punishable under subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled 

Substances Act), in 2 or more separate criminal episodes, in relation to the 

group or association, if any of the activities of the criminal street gang affects 

interstate or foreign commerce. 

‘‘(2) GANG CRIME.—The term ‘gang crime’ means conduct constituting any 

Federal or State crime, punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, in 

any of the following categories: 

‘‘(A) A crime of violence. 

‘‘(B) A crime involving obstruction of justice, tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant, or burglary. 

3 

‘‘(C) A crime involving the manufacturing, importing, distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the 

Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)). 

‘‘(D) Any conduct punishable under section 844 (relating to explosive materials), subsection (a)(1), (d), (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a 

violent felony (as defined in section 924(e)(2)(B) of this title) or is a serious 

drug offense (as defined in section 924(e)(2)(A))), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), 

(g)(8), (g)(9), (i), (j), (k), (n), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating 

to unlawful acts), or subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of section 

924 (relating to penalties), section 930 (relating to possession of firearms 

and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities), section 931 (relating to purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons), sections 

1028 and 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with 

identification documents or access devices), section 1952 (relating to interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), 

section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), or sections 2312 through 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles or stolen property). 

‘‘(E) Any conduct punishable under section 274 (relating to bringing in 

and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting 

certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

‘‘(3) AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE.—The term ‘aggravated sexual abuse’ means 

an offense that, if committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction 

would be an offense under section 2241(a). 

‘‘(4) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of the several States of the United 

States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.’’. 

(b) AMENDMENT RELATING TO PRIORITY OF FORFEITURE OVER ORDERS FOR RESTITUTION.—Section 3663(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 

‘‘chapter 46 or chapter 96 of this title’’ and inserting ‘‘section 521, under chapter 46 

or 96,’’. 

(c) MONEY LAUNDERING.—Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States Code, is 

amended by inserting ‘‘, section 521 (relating to criminal street gang prosecutions)’’

before ‘‘, section 541’’. 

SEC. 102. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION IN AID OF RACKETEERING. 

(a) SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO OFFENSE.—Section 1952(a) of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended—

(1) so that the heading for the section reads as follows: 

‘‘§ 1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to racketeering’’; 

(2) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; 

(3) by striking ‘‘travels’’ and all that follows through ‘‘intent to’’ and inserting 

‘‘, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce’’; 

(4) by striking ‘‘(1) distribute’’ and inserting ‘‘(A) distributes’’; 

(5) by striking ‘‘(2) commit’’ and inserting ‘‘(B) commits’’; 

(6) by striking ‘‘(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate’’ and inserting ‘‘(C) otherwise promotes, manages, establishes, carries on, 

or facilitates’’; and 

(7) by striking ‘‘and thereafter’’ and all that follows through the end of the 

subsection and inserting the following: 

‘‘or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in paragraph (2). 

‘‘(2) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—

‘‘(A) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A) or (C) of paragraph (1), 

a fine under this title and imprisonment for not less than 5 nor more than 20 

years; and 

‘‘(B) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), a fine 

under this title and imprisonment for not less than 10 nor more than 30 years, 

but if death results the offender shall be sentenced to death, or to imprisonment 

for any term of years or for life.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The item relating to section 1952 in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to racketeering.’’. 

4 

SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIME. 

(a) CARJACKING.—Section 2119 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm’’ in 

the matter preceding paragraph (1); 

(2) by inserting ‘‘or conspires’’ after ‘‘attempts’’ in the matter preceding paragraph (1); 

(3) by striking ‘‘15’’ and inserting ‘‘20’’ in paragraph (1); and 

(4) by striking ‘‘or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both’’ and inserting ‘‘and imprisoned not less than 10 years nor more than 30 years’’ in paragraph 

(2). 

(b) CLARIFICATION OF ILLEGAL GUN TRANSFERS TO COMMIT DRUG TRAFFICKING

CRIME OR CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.—Section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(h) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers 

a firearm, knowing or intending that the firearm will be used to commit, or possessed in furtherance of, a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, shall be fined 

under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years nor more than 20 years.’’. 

(c) AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL SENTENCING PROVISION RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON

CRIMINAL ASSOCIATION.—Section 3582(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘section 521 (criminal street gang prosecutions), in’’ after ‘‘felony set forth in’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘specified person, other than his attorney, upon’’ and inserting 

‘‘specified person upon’’; and 

(3) by inserting ‘‘a criminal street gang or’’ before ‘‘an illegal enterprise’’. 

(d) CONSPIRACY PENALTY.—Section 371 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘five’’ and inserting ‘‘20’’. 

SEC. 104. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR USE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FACILITIES IN THE 

COMMISSION OF MURDER-FOR-HIRE AND OTHER FELONY CRIMES OF VIOLENCE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1958 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the following: 

‘‘§ 1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murderfor-hire and other felony crimes of violence’’; 

(2) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘or other crime of violence, punishable by 

imprisonment for more than one year,’’ after ‘‘intent that a murder’’; and 

(3) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘shall be fined’’ the first place it appears and 

all that follows through the end of such subsection and inserting the following: 

‘‘shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under this title 

‘‘(1) if the crime of violence or conspiracy results in the death of any person, 

be sentenced to death or life in prison; 

‘‘(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, or a conspiracy to commit such a crime of 

violence, be imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 30; 

‘‘(3) if the crime of violence is an assault, or a conspiracy to assault, that results in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for life 

or any term of years not less than 20; and 

‘‘(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any term of years not less 

than 10.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The item relating to section 1958 in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire and other felony crimes of violence.’’. 

SEC. 105. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR VIOLENT CRIMES IN AID OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY. 

(a) OFFENSE.—Section 1959(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read 

as follows: 

‘‘(a) Whoever commits, or conspires, threatens, or attempts to commit, a crime of 

violence for the purpose of furthering the activities of an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in, such an enterprise, shall, unless the death penalty is otherwise imposed, in addition and consecutive to the punishment provided for any other violation of this chapter and in addition to being subject to a fine under this title—

‘‘(1) if the crime of violence results in the death of any person, be sentenced 

to death or life in prison; 

‘‘(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of years 

not less than 30; 

5 

‘‘(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting in serious bodily injury (as 

defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for life or for any term of years not less 

than 20; and 

‘‘(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any term of years not less 

than 10.’’. 

(b) VENUE.—Section 1959 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 

at the end the following: —

‘‘(c) A prosecution for a violation of this section may be brought in—

‘‘(1) the judicial district in which the crime of violence occurred; or 

‘‘(2) any judicial district in which racketeering activity of the enterprise occurred.’’. 

SEC. 106. MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED DURING AND IN RELATION TO 

A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Part D of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED DURING AND IN RELATION TO A

DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME

‘‘SEC. 424. (a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever commits, or conspires, or attempts to commit, a crime of violence during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, shall, 

unless the death penalty is otherwise imposed, in addition and consecutive to the 

punishment provided for the drug trafficking crime and in addition to being subject 

to a fine under this title—

‘‘(1) if the crime of violence results in the death of any person, be sentenced 

to death or life in prison; 

‘‘(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of years 

not less than 30; 

‘‘(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting in serious bodily injury (as 

defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for life or any term of years not less 

than 20; and 

‘‘(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any term of years not less 

than 10. 

‘‘(b) VENUE.—A prosecution for a violation of this section may be brought in—

‘‘(1) the judicial district in which the murder or other crime of violence occurred; or 

‘‘(2) any judicial district in which the drug trafficking crime may be prosecuted. 

‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—

‘‘(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 

16 of title 18, United States Code; and 

‘‘(2) the term ‘drug trafficking crime’ has the meaning given that term in section 924(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents for the Comprehensive Drug 

Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 is amended by inserting after the item 

relating to section 423, the following: 

‘‘Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.’’. 

SEC. 107. MULTIPLE INTERSTATE MURDER. 

(a) OFFENSE.—Chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 

at the end the following new section: 

‘‘§ 1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of multiple 

murder 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever travels in or causes another (including the intended 

victim) to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes another (including the intended victim) to use the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign 

commerce, or who conspires or attempts to do so, with intent that 2 or more intentional homicides be committed in violation of the laws of any State or the United 

States shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under this title—

‘‘(1) if the offense results in the death of any person, be sentenced to death 

or life in prison; 

‘‘(2) if the offense results is assault resulting in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 

20; and 

‘‘(3) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any term of years not less 

than 10. 

6 

‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—The term ‘State’ means each of the several States of the United 

States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of 

the United States.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 51 

of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of multiple murder.’’. 

SEC. 108. ADDITIONAL RACKETEERING ACTIVITY. 

Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘, or would have been so chargeable if 

the act or threat had not been committed in Indian country (as defined in section 1151) or in any other area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction,’’ after ‘‘chargeable under State law’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘section 1123 (relating to interstate 

murder),’’ after ‘‘section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information),’’. 

SEC. 109. EXPANSION OF REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST RELEASE OF PERSONS 

CHARGED WITH FIREARMS OFFENSES. 

Section 3142 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subsection (e), in the matter following paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘an 

offense under subsection (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c))), (g)(2), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), or (g)(9) 

of section 922, or a crime of violence,’’ after ‘‘that the person committed’’; and 

(2) in subsection (g), by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether 

the offense is a crime of violence, or involves a controlled substance, firearm, 

explosive, or destructive devise;’’. 

SEC. 110. VENUE IN CAPITAL CASES. 

Section 3235 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘§ 3235. Venue in capital cases 

‘‘(a) The trial for any offense punishable by death shall be held in the district 

where the offense was committed or in any district in which the offense began, continued, or was completed. 

‘‘(b) If the offense, or related conduct, under subsection (a) involves activities 

which affect interstate or foreign commerce, or the importation of an object or person into the United States, such offense may be prosecuted in any district in which 

those activities occurred.’’. 

SEC. 111. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIME. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘§ 3298. Violent crime offenses 

‘‘No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital felony, crime 

of violence, including any racketeering activity or gang crime which involves any 

crime of violence, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted not 

later than 15 years after the date on which the alleged violation occurred or the continuing offense was completed.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 213 

of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘3298. Violent crime offenses.’’. 

SEC. 112. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF CRIME OF VIOLENCE. 

Section 16(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) any other offense that is an offense punishable by imprisonment for more 

than one year and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical 

force may be used against the person or property of another, or is an offense 

punishable under subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act.’’. 

SEC. 113. CLARIFICATION TO HEARSAY EXCEPTION FOR FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING. 

Rule 804(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(6) FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING.—A statement offered against a party who 

has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing, or who could reasonably foresee such 

wrongdoing would take place, if the wrongdoing was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.’’. 

7 

SEC. 114. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS IN CRIMES OF VIOLENCE 

AND DRUG TRAFFICKING. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)(A)—

(A) by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting ‘‘or conspires to commit any of the 

above acts, shall, for each instance in which the firearm is used, carried, 

or possessed’’; 

(B) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘5 years’’ and inserting ‘‘7 years’’; and 

(C) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(ii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment 

of not less than 15 years; and 

‘‘(iii) if the firearm is used to wound, injure, or maim another person, be 

sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 20 years.’’; and 

(2) by striking paragraph (4). 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is 

amended by striking subsection (o). 

SEC. 115. TRANSFER OF JUVENILES. 

The 4th undesignated paragraph of section 5032 of title 18, United States Code, 

is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘A juvenile’’ where it appears at the beginning of the paragraph and inserting ‘‘Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a juvenile’’

; 

(2) by striking ‘‘as an adult, except that, with’’ and inserting ‘‘as an adult. 

With’’; and 

(3) by striking ‘‘However, a juvenile’’ and all that follows through ‘‘criminal 

prosecution.’’ at the end of the paragraph and inserting ‘‘The Attorney General 

may prosecute as an adult a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an act 

after that juvenile’s 16th birthday which if committed by an adult would be a 

crime of violence that is a felony, an offense described in subsection (d), (i), (j), 

(k), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating to unlawful acts), or subsection 

(b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of section 924 (relating to penalties), section 

930 (relating to possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities), or section 931 (relating to purchase, ownership, or possession of body 

armor by violent felons). The decision whether or not to prosecute a juvenile as 

an adult under the immediately preceding sentence is not subject to judicial review in any court. In a prosecution under that sentence, the juvenile may be 

prosecuted and convicted as an adult for any other offense which is properly 

joined under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and may also be convicted as an adult of any lesser included offense.’’. 

TITLE II—INCREASED FEDERAL RESOURCES 

TO DETER AND PREVENT AT-RISK YOUTH 

FROM JOINING ILLEGAL STREET GANGS 

SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF AND ASSISTANCE FOR ‘‘HIGH INTENSITY’’ INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY AREAS. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section the following definitions shall apply: 

(1) GOVERNOR.—The term ‘‘Governor’’ means a Governor of a State or the 

Mayor of the District of Columbia. 

(2) HIGH INTENSITY INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY AREA.—The term ‘‘high intensity interstate gang activity area’’ means an area within a State that is designated as a high intensity interstate gang activity area under subsection (b)(1). 

(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means a State of the United States, the District 

of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 

States. 

(b) HIGH INTENSITY INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY AREAS.—

(1) DESIGNATION.—The Attorney General, after consultation with the Governors of appropriate States, may designate as high intensity interstate gang 

activity areas, specific areas that are located within 1 or more States. 

(2) ASSISTANCE.—In order to provide Federal assistance to high intensity 

interstate gang activity areas, the Attorney General shall—

(A) establish criminal street gang enforcement teams, consisting of Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities, for the coordinated investigation, disruption, apprehension, and prosecution of criminal street gangs 

and offenders in each high intensity interstate gang activity area; 

8 

(B) direct the reassignment or detailing from any Federal department or 

agency (subject to the approval of the head of that department or agency, 

in the case of a department or agency other than the Department of Justice) of personnel to each criminal street gang enforcement team; 

(C) provide all necessary funding for the operation of the criminal street 

gang enforcement team in each high intensity interstate gang activity area; 

and 

(D) provide all necessary funding for national and regional meetings of 

criminal street gang enforcement teams, and all other related organizations, as needed, to ensure effective operation of such teams through the 

sharing of intelligence, best practices and for any other related purpose. 

(3) COMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL STREET GANG ENFORCEMENT TEAM.—The team 

established pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) shall consist of agents and officers, 

where feasible, from—

(A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation; 

(B) the Drug Enforcement Administration; 

(C) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; 

(D) the United States Marshals Service; 

(E) the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security of the Department of Homeland Security; 

(F) the Department of Housing and Urban Development; 

(G) State and local law enforcement; and 

(H) Federal, State, and local prosecutors. 

(4) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION.—In considering an area for designation as a 

high intensity interstate gang activity area under this section, the Attorney 

General shall consider—

(A) the current and predicted levels of gang crime activity in the area; 

(B) the extent to which violent crime in the area appears to be related 

to criminal street gang activity, such as drug trafficking, murder, robbery, 

assaults, carjacking, arson, kidnapping, extortion, and other criminal activity; 

(C) the extent to which State and local law enforcement agencies have 

committed resources to—

(i) respond to the gang crime problem; and 

(ii) participate in a gang enforcement team; 

(D) the extent to which a significant increase in the allocation of Federal 

resources would enhance local response to the gang crime activities in the 

area; and 

(E) any other criteria that the Attorney General considers to be appropriate. 

(c) ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS.—The Attorney General is authorized 

to hire 94 additional Assistant United States attorneys to carry out the provisions 

of this section. Each attorney hired under this subsection shall be assigned to a high 

intensity interstate gang activity area. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated—

(1) $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to carry out 

subsection (b); and 

(2) $7,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to carry out subsection (c). 

SEC. 202. GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL PROSECUTORS TO COMBAT VIOLENT CRIME AND TO 

PROTECT WITNESSES AND VICTIMS OF CRIMES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is amended —

(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(5) to hire additional prosecutors to—

‘‘(A) allow more cases to be prosecuted; and 

‘‘(B) reduce backlogs; 

‘‘(6) to fund technology, equipment, and training for prosecutors and law enforcement in order to increase accurate identification of gang members and violent offenders, and to maintain databases with such information to facilitate coordination among law enforcement and prosecutors; and 

‘‘(7) to fund technology, equipment, and training for prosecutors to increase 

the accurate identification and successful prosecution of young violent offenders.’’. 

9 

1 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs—Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Modern-Day Youth Gangs (June 2002), available at http://www.ncjrs.org/ 

pdffiles1/ojjdp/191524.pdf. 2 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs—Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Fact Sheet, National Youth Gang Survey Trends from 1996 to 2000 (February 

2003), available at http://www.west.asu.edu/ckatz/gangclass/Section—1/current.pdf. 3 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs—Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Highlights of the 2002 National Youth Gang Survey (April 2004), available 

at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200401.pdf. 4 See Id. 5 See Id. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 31707 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 

2006 through 2010 to carry out this subtitle.’’. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1279, the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act 

of 2005,’’ is a comprehensive bill to increase gang prosecutions and 

prevent gang-related crimes. The bill authorizes increased Federal 

funding to support Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts 

against violent gangs, and to coordinate law enforcement agencies’

efforts to share intelligence and jointly prosecute violent gangs. The 

act also creates new criminal gang prosecution offenses, enhances 

existing gang and violent crime penalties to deter and punish illegal street gangs, proposes violent crime reforms needed to prosecute effectively gang members, and reforms the Federal juvenile 

justice system to authorize prosecution of 16- and 17-year-old gang 

members who commit violent crimes. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The problem of gang violence in America is not a new one.1 Nor 

is it a problem that is limited to major urban areas. Once thought 

to be only a problem in our Nation’s largest cities, gangs have invaded smaller communities.2 According to the Department of Justice there are currently over 25,000 gangs that are active in more 

than 3,000 jurisdictions in the United States.3 Every city with a 

population of 250,000 or more has reported gang activity in their 

communities.4 Based on the latest available National Youth Gang 

Survey, it is now estimated that there are over 750,000 gang members.5

Gangs now resemble organized crime syndicates who commit gun 

violence, illegal gun trafficking, illegal drug trafficking and other 

serious crimes. More and more communities are suffering from 

gang violence, leading to rival gang battles, where all too often innocent bystanders are tragically shot, and law-abiding members of 

communities are prisoners in their own homes in fear of being 

caught in the cross-fire of gang violence. 

There has been rapid growth in national and international gangs 

as well. In particular, many communities have seen a rapid increase in the membership and presence of ‘‘MS-13,’’ a violent gang 

comprised of alien criminals from El Salvador (most, if not all of 

10 

6See http://www.house.gov/forbes/documents/gangcliques.pdf. 

7 See http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius—03/xl/03tbl2-11.xls. 

whom, are illegally in this country)—which has been estimated to 

include 8,000 to 10,000 members operating in 31 States.6

Gang violence in America is a growing problem. While national 

figures have shown a decline in violent crime generally, the proportion of violent crimes committed by gang members has increased. 

In 2003, juvenile gang members committed over 800 murders 

across the nation.7 Gangs have been directly linked to illegal drug 

trafficking, human trafficking, identification documentation falsification, violent maimings, assault and murder, and the increased 

use of firearms to commit deadly crimes. 

In response to this problem, the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005,’’ seeks to build on strategies that work, 

including: (1) mandatory-minimum penalties for crimes of violence 

to incapacitate violent gang members and to gain leverage from 

less culpable gang members in order to secure cooperation of insiders to solve gang crimes and prosecute higher-ups in the organization; (2) joint task forces of Federal, State and local law enforcement and prosecutors that will join Federal resources with local intelligence in order to target the most serious gangs in a community; (3) the promotion of intelligence sharing among Federal, State 

and local law enforcement agencies; and (4) limited juvenile justice 

reform to ensure that violent juvenile gang members are prosecuted for acts of violence. 

The bill is premised on the need for a national, comprehensive, 

and coordinated approach to reducing gang violence in our communities. Such an approach is analogous to the national effort in the 

1960’s and 1970’s to eliminate organized crime syndicates through 

aggressive Federal law enforcement efforts. The gang bill applies 

these same principles, some of which already have started and are 

in place—to increase significantly the ability of Federal, State and 

local task forces to investigate and prosecute violent gangs. 

As in the case of organized crime, Federal law enforcement has 

the ability to conduct long-term and complex criminal investigations which are designed to prosecute large organizations—akin to 

national gangs (e.g. ‘‘MS-13,’’ ‘‘Bloods,’’ ‘‘Crips,’’ ‘‘Latin Kings’’). 

There is no national coordinated infrastructure for conducting such 

investigations, nor is there a means to share intelligence among 

law enforcement agencies to coordinate such an effort. 

The bill will create a national infrastructure by: (1) designating 

High Intensity Gang Areas (‘‘HIGAs’’) and authorizing Federal 

funding to combat gang activity by creating Federal, State and 

local Gang Enforcement Task Forces that bring together local intelligence and Federal resources; (2) creating a national means by 

which to share gang intelligence among Federal, State and local 

law enforcement agencies; and (3) authorizing $20 million per year 

over 5 years to help States hire prosecutors, purchase technology, 

equipment and training for gang enforcement. 

When attacking organized crime syndicates, prosecutors were 

given new and effective tools to prosecute and convict members of 

organized crime families. The Justice Department aggressively 

prosecuted such cases, and used a new and valuable tool for attacking organized crime, the RICO statute (‘‘Racketeer Influenced CorVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074
11 

rupt Organizations’’). The RICO statute gave Federal prosecutors 

broad jurisdiction to charge members of organized crime syndicates 

with a variety of State and Federal crimes typically committed by 

members of such organizations (e.g. State and local crimes involving murder, robbery, extortion, gambling). Without such a new tool, 

and enhanced criminal penalties, investigators and prosecutors 

would not have been able to dismantle and bring down the significant organized crime figures. 

(A) THE NEW GANG CRIME SECTION 521 OF TITLE 18

Section 521 of title 18 is the existing gang prosecution statute. 

It has been on the books for 10 years and has been used in less 

than 10 prosecutions. Gang prosecutors have been forced to use 

RICO and other Federal statutes—e.g. narcotics laws and illegal 

gun prosecutions to target gangs and gang members. Each of these 

approaches suffers from deficiencies which hamstring law enforcement efforts to dismantle gangs, particularly those that are now 

becoming national in scope. 

The new Section 521 creates a new gang crime statute (hereinafter ‘‘Gang Crime statute’’) prohibiting a person from committing 

a gang crime that is for the purpose of furthering the gang’s activities, gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in 

such a gang. A criminal street gang is defined to be a formal or 

informal group or association of three or more individuals, who 

commit two or more gang crimes (one of which is a crime of violence) in 2 separate criminal episodes, in relation to the group or 

association, if any of the activities of the criminal street gang affects interstate or foreign commerce. This provision is intended to 

reach as far as possible to regulate intrastate and interstate activities under Congress’ well-established power to regulate interstate 

commerce under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. If death results from the gang crime, the perpetrator can be punished by 

death or life imprisonment; if the gang crime is kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse or maiming, the perpetrator would be sentenced 

to a minimum of 30 years imprisonment; if the gang crime resulted 

in serious bodily injury (life threatening), the perpetrator would be 

sentenced to a minimum of 20 years; and for other crimes gang-related, the perpetrator would be sentenced to a minimum of 10 

years. 

Gang crimes are defined to include a crime of violence, drug trafficking, firearms and explosive violations, money laundering, interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles, illegal alien and 

human trafficking, and aggravated sexual abuse. The new Gang 

Crime statute would add a significant tool to law enforcement’s arsenal against gangs. Rather than trying to shoehorn such cases 

into the RICO statute, the new gang crime statute is narrowly tailored to address the specific problem of gangs. Gang investigations 

and prosecutions take time and resources. Civilian witnesses are 

not typically familiar with the inner workings of a gang, and are 

not usually present to observe and identify gang members when 

committing crimes. Moreover, as mentioned by National District 

Attorneys Association (‘‘NDAA’’) President Elect, Paul Logli at the 

hearing on this bill, witness intimidation, retaliation and killings 

are huge problems in gang prosecutions. 

12 

Typically, gang cases are built through the cooperation of gang 

members—not simply informants who wear wires or conduct undercover operations, but more typically from cooperating witnesses, 

who themselves committed acts of violence or were close enough to 

other gang members to observe or hear about such incidents. Homicides and shootings are solved not through traditional means but 

more from insider knowledge, insider testimony, and members who 

plead guilty to serious offenses in the hopes of getting a reduced 

sentence. These witnesses usually are incarcerated pending testifying and are not available to conduct undercover work. 

Given the complexity of these investigations, it is simplistic to 

argue that gang members can simply be prosecuted at the State 

level for single-incident crimes. Gangs are not eliminated by prosecution for a single incident. Moreover, such prosecutions are difficult, if not impossible, given the absence of witnesses, or insiders 

who are willing to testify against violent gangs for fear of retribution by gang members or witness intimidation. Indeed, four MS-13 

members are now on trial in Federal court in the Eastern District 

of Virginia for killing a female cooperating witness in order to preserve he testimony—stabbing her repeatedly over and over to silence her. To suggest that witnesses will simply walk into court, 

freely testify and walk out without fear or, retribution is contradicted by the real world. Recent press reports noted that in Baltimore witnesses are so afraid to testify that they have to be jailed 

rather than freed to return and testify against violent gangs and 

criminal in Baltimore. Nearly 40 percent of all homicide cases in 

Baltimore are dropped because of the lack of witness cooperation. 

It takes time, just like the mafia cases of old, to build a case, secure cooperation, and to present a complex criminal case to a jury 

and rid a neighborhood of an entire gang and its members. The 

prosecutors, or are different from single-incident crimes where defendants are often acquitted, return to the neighborhood and continue their ways of intimidation and domestic terrorism against 

law-abiding individuals. 

In reality, complex gang cases are prosecuted against a large 

number of defendants ‘‘in a one-time trial’’ where all of the evidence, historical, undercover operations, wiretaps, if any, are presented so that a jury can see the full-scope of the illegal gang’s 

criminal activities. Organized crime cases were prosecuted in the 

same way with long and complex trials designed to take out a number of defendants in one single prosecution. 

(B) ADVANTAGES OF A NEW GANG CRIME STATUTE OVER RICO

As noted, RICO was enacted to bring together in one criminal 

prosecution the entire picture of a criminal organization. Gangs are 

no different. Juries need to know all of the illegal activities of a 

gang and gangs need to be punished for all of their illegal activities—not just one, not just two criminal episodes. 

The new law—Section 521—is designed to address violent gangs 

with a tailored statute addressing crimes typically committed by 

violent gangs. The new Gang Crime statute, Section 521, has four 

significant advantages over RICO. 

First, RICO imposes a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment (unless the underlying racketeering activity carries a higher 

13 

8 18 U.S.C. 1963. 

9 18 U.S.C. 1959. 

10 18 U.S.C. 1961. 11 18 U.S.C. 1961. 12 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs—Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide trends in the United States (September 2004), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ 

homicide/homtrnd.htm. 13 Id. 

penalty),8 while the Gang Crime statute sets out clear result oriented mandatory minimum penalties—10 years for a gang crime, 

20 years for a gang crime that causes serious bodily injury, 30 

years for kidnaping, aggravated sexual assault or maiming, and life 

or death for a killing; 

Second, RICO does not provide for a death penalty (except for 

Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity).9 The Gang Crime 

statute has a death penalty for any gang crime committed which 

results in the death of another person; 

Third, RICO requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a structured ‘‘enterprise’’—that is an organization with a heirchy, an organization with levels of responsibilities and an organized structure,10 which is difficult to establish in national gang prosecutions 

where gangs consist of an overarching structure but have loosely 

affiliated smaller groups. The Gang Crime statute defines a gang 

to mean a formal or informal group or association of three or more 

individuals who commit two or more gang crimes (one of which is 

a crime of violence); and 

Fourth, RICO requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

defendant engaged in a ‘‘pattern of racketeering activity’’ 11 while 

the Gang Crime statute only requires that the defendant committed a gang crime to further the activities of the gang or to gain 

entrance or maintain position in such a gang. 

(C) THE NEED FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM

Sec. 115 of the bill gives the Attorney General the discretion to 

charge as an adult in Federal court a juvenile who is 16 years or 

older who commits a crime of violence, such as 16- and 17-year-olds 

who commit murder, aggravated sexual abuse, maiming, kidnaping, drive-by shootings, assaults with intent to kill, assaults 

with intent to maim, armed robberies, and other similar violent 

crimes would be eligible for prosecution as an adult. 

According to the Department of Justice Homicide Trends Report 

for the years 1976–2002, juveniles are especially implicated as 

homicide offenders in gang related killings.12 One out of every 

three murders committed by a juvenile during this period of 1976 

to 2002 was committed by a juvenile for gang-related reasons.13

This limited reform, as U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald testified, would 

only result in a relatively small number of juveniles, mostly violent 

juvenile gang members, being prosecuted in Federal court, along 

with co-defendants who are adult members of such gangs. 

The current juvenile transfer provisions in title 18 are simply unworkable—Federal prosecutors avoid prosecution of juvenile violent 

gang members. First, under the existing transfer provision, the 

Court must hold a hearing to determine if such a transfer should 

occur; if the answer is yes, then defendant has a right to an interlocutory appeal. The juvenile gang member is inevitably severed 

from a joint trial with his gang member co-defendants and Federal 

14 

14The National Center for Juvenile Justice and U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice 

Programs—Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Technical Assistance to the 

Juvenile Court—Special Project Bulletin, Trying and Sentencing Juveniles as Adults: An Analysis of State Transfer and Blended Sentencing Laws (October 2003), available at http:// 

ncjj.servehttp.com/NCJJWebsite/pdf/transferbulletin.pdf. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. 

prosecutors are required to burden the system, by conducting two 

separate Federal criminal trials at which the victims, the witnesses 

and other members of the community are required to testify at a 

great cost and expense, and without any consideration of the impact of such an ordeal on the victims and their families. 

The proposed direct filing provision gives prosecutors the discretion to charge the violent juvenile gang members in Federal court. 

A right to appeal on jurisdictional grounds would always exist—

such as when the defendant is 15 or did not commit an act of violence, as defined under section 16 of title 18. More importantly, 

such a provision will ensure that all the gang members are tried 

at one time—together and in the same courtroom—which will impose less of a burden on crime victims while ensuring that a fair 

trial is conducted. (Obviously, the government will not be able to 

seek the death penalty against the juvenile offender). 

Section 115 is a more limited reform than most State laws governing adult treatment of juvenile violent offenders. According to a 

2003 Justice Department report, every State allows juveniles to be 

tried as adults in criminal courts under certain circumstances.14 In 

more than half of the States—29 to be exact—the legislature has 

decided that in certain cases, typically serious violent offenses and 

other offenses against persons, juveniles must be tried as adult 

criminal offenders.15 In a smaller number of states, 15, prosecutors 

have discretion to file such cases in criminal court to treat juveniles as adults.16 In 34 States, juveniles who have been tried as 

adults must be prosecuted in criminal court for any subsequent offenses (if convicted of first offense).17

There is a strong need to hold serious, violent and habitual offenders accountable for their crimes. In many cases, doing so involves the need to prosecute such offenders as adults. All too often 

we hear that prevention is the answer, that more government programs, more education, more psychiatric services, more job training 

will eliminate the problem. All that may be true but to the innocent and law abiding citizens the bullets that are fired at them are 

no different whether fired by an adult of a 16 or 17 year old gang 

member. 

(D) THE NEED FOR OTHER VIOLENT CRIME REFORMS

The bill includes a number of provisions enhancing penalties for 

certain Federal offenses typically committed by gang members as 

well as other related reforms including: (1) interstate travel in aid 

of racketeering activity; (2) carjacking; (3) illegal gun trafficking; 

(4) murder-for-hire; violent crimes in aid of racketeering; (5) murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation to 

a drug trafficking crime; (6) multiple interstate murder. In addition, the bill includes reforms of the statute of limitations for violent crimes, modification of venue statute for capital cases; pre-trial 

15 

18 U.S. v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). 

detention of armed gang members; and increased penalties for use 

of a firearm in a crime of violence and drug trafficking. 

The bill is designed to respond to the criminal versatility among 

serious gangs. Assaults, crack cocaine trafficking, graffiti, intimidation, vandalism, violence as a means of discipline, and violence as 

a means of retaliation and furthering a gangs’ illegal activities are 

common to gang activity in the United States. Each gang type favors certain sorts of crime—entrepreneurial gangs, violent gangs 

and drug trafficking gangs, all rely on different combinations of illegal activities. 

Some may complain that the bill will only fill our prisons with 

more criminals. We expect that, if enacted, such a result would enhance public safety. By reducing gang violence, we expect that significant cost savings will accrue from the reduction of crime and 

harm to victims and their communities. Further, this bill will not 

result in any significant expansion of Federal prosecution of gangs. 

Rather, we anticipate that the Federal role here will be limited to 

increasing at the margin complex gang prosecutions using all available tools. States will continue to prosecute 90 percent of criminal 

cases. Paul Logli testified that District Attorneys need help particularly in prosecution of national and international gangs. A coordinated national effort will increase shared intelligence and provide resources to State and local law enforcement to develop intelligence gathering and sharing systems on gang membership and 

gang crimes. 

(E) MANDATORY-MINIMUM PENALTIES: 

BENEFITS TO THE LAW-ABIDING PUBLIC

Finally, the bill includes a number of new mandatory minimum 

criminal penalties with respect to violent gang crimes and other 

violent offenses. As explained here, mandatory minimum penalties 

are effective means for ensuring consistency in sentencing, and promote public safety by deterring violent criminals and incapacitating 

violent criminals who are likely to commit additional violent 

crimes. 

The Supreme Court’s recent Booker 18 decision in has eviscerated 

long-standing and effective sentencing policies adopted by Congress 

as part of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The evidence is 

starting to come in, and the picture is not a good one. Federal 

judges have begun to hand out sentences below the guideline recommended range, citing the discretion they now have under the 

Booker decision. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was designed 

to provide certainty and fairness in meeting the purposes of sentencing, avoiding unwarranted disparities among defendants with 

similar records who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct. Sentencing judges have started to deviate, and some have announced even prospectively that they intend to do so in more cases. 

Given the elimination of an effective determinate sentencing guideline system, Congress will need to act quickly in certain areas by 

imposing mandatory-minimum sentences to protect the public, particularly when it comes to violent gang crimes. 

Mandatory minimum penalties send a clear message to violent 

gang offenders—if you commit the crime—you will do the time. 

16 

19 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs—Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide trends in the United States (September 2004), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ 

homicide/homtrnd.htm. 20See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism. 21 Steven D. Levitt, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990’s: Four Factors That Explain 

the Decline and Seven That Do Not, 18 J.Econ. Perspectives 163 (2004). 22 Joanna M. Shepherd, Police, Prosecutors, Criminals and Determinate Sentencing: The 

Truth about Truth-in-Sentencing Laws, 45 J.L. & Econ. 509 (2002). 23 Id. 24 Peter W. Greenwood et al., Three Strikes and You’re Out: Estimated Benefits and Costs of 

California’s New Mandatory-Sentencing Law, in Three Strikes and You’re Out: Vengeance as 

Public Policy (David Schichor & Dale K. Sechrest eds. 1996). 

Such an approach has proven effective in other gun violence reduction programs such as ‘‘Project Exile’’ in Virginia and nationwide 

in the Administration’s Project Safe Neighborhoods. A similar approach is needed here now with our national effort against violent 

gangs. 

Moreover, mandatory minimum penalties provide the tools for 

prosecutors to secure the cooperation of gang members to dismantle 

violent gang organizations and solve violent crimes where the witnesses may only be other gang members. Without such a penalty, 

gang members will not cooperate with law enforcement; they will 

simply turn their back on cooperation, do the time, and gang violence will continue to expand and to threaten our communities. 

Sentencing reforms—mandatory minimum penalties along with 

determinate sentencing requirements—have lead to dramatic reductions in violent crime in the last 30 years. There is growing research to show that laws such as—truth-in-sentencing, determinate 

sentencing practices, ‘‘three-strikes and you’re out,’’ and mandatory 

sentencing requirements resulted in dramatic reductions in crime 

since the 1970’s. Violent crime victimization rates have dropped 

from 47.7 per 1,000 population in 1973 to 22.8 in 2002—that drop 

in crime has coincided with an increase in the number of prisoners, 

including substantial increases in the number of Federal prisoners.19 While some would say that is coincidence, statistical researchers have shown to the contrary. For example, increases in 

prison population have incapacitated recidivists and deterred others from committing crime. According to Justice Department statistics on criminal offenders, 4 out of every 10 jailed offenders had a 

current or past sentence for a violent offense.20 Violent offenders 

have significant recidivism rates—particularly those convicted of 

robbery and burglary. 

Professor Steven Levitt conducted a study to show that a significant part of the decline in violent crime is attributable to increased 

incarceration.21 In a more recent study, Joanna Shepherd, demonstrated that truth-in-sentencing laws—determinate and certain 

sentences—have had a dramatic impact on reducing serious violent 

crimes.22 Since 1994, Congress has provided incentive grants to 

States which can demonstrate that violent offenders serve at least 

85 percent of their sentences. Professor Shepherd conducted a sophisticated regression analysis comparing States with and without 

such truth-in-sentencing laws and her conclusions are astounding: 

in those States with determinate sentencing laws—murders fell by 

16 percent, aggravated assaults by 12 percent, robberies by 24 percent, rapes by 12 percent and larcenies by 3 percent.23

Other studies confirm the obvious point—incarcerating an offender prevents him from repeating his crimes while he is in prison.24 Again, Joanna M. Shepherd, a leading expert in this field, esVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074
17 

25 Joanna M. Shepherd, Fear of First Strike: The Full Deterrent Effect of California’s Two- and 

Three-Strikes Legislation, 31 J. Legal Stud. 159 (2002). 26 Id. 27 John J. Donahue III & Peter Siegelman, Allocating resources Among Prisons and Social 

Programs in the Battle Against Crime, 27 J. Legal STUD. 1, 12–14 (1998); James Q. Qilson, 

Prisons in a Free Society, 117 Pub. Interest 37, 38 (Fall 1994); Thomas Marvell & Carlisle 

Moody, Prison Population Growth and Crime Reduction, 10 J. Quantitative Criminal. 109 

(1994). 28 U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Victim Costs and Consequences: A New 

Look (1996). 29 Id. 30David A. Anderson, The Aggregate Burden of Crime, 42 J.L. & Econ. 611 (1999). 

tablished that California’s ‘‘Three Strikes’’ law had significant public benefits by deterring criminals from committing additional violent crimes. Her study demonstrated that in the first 2 years of 

California’s three strikes law—eight murders, 3,952 aggravated assaults, 10, 672 robberies and 384,488 burglaries were deterred in 

California.25 The ‘‘Three Strikes’’ law deterred crimes not only in 

counties where such sentences were imposed but in surrounding 

counties, and that criminals seek to avoid not only the third and 

last crime, but also the first and second crimes.26 More generally, 

estimates of both a deterrent and an incapacitative effect have suggested that each 1% increase in the prison population produces approximately 0.10% to 0.30% fewer crimes.27

Balanced against these reductions in crime from deterrence and 

incapacitation, there are significant cost savings to society from reducing the occurrence of crime. The available data suggests that 

the costs are high. In a 1996 study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, the calculated loss per criminal victimization (tangible and intangible losses) range from $2.9 million for various 

forms of murder to $87,000 for rape and sexual assault, to $8,000 

for robbery, to $14,000 for burglary and $370 for larceny.28 They 

also computed the aggregate annual victim cost in the United 

States from crime—$450 billion as of 1990, or more than $1800 per 

United States resident.29 Another more recent analysis using a different methodology reported an even higher aggregate burden from 

crime on the United States—in the neighborhood of $1 trillion annually.30

Considered in this context, balancing these obvious public benefits from swift and certain punishments, opponents to mandatoryminimums offer little evidence to the contrary—they ignore the research showing clear public benefits from such sentencing policies, 

and trumpet cases of claimed injustice as a means to obfuscate the 

issue, ultimately to the detriment of public safety, and the rights 

of law-abiding citizens to live in a crime-free secure community. 

HEARINGS

The Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1279 on April 5, 

2005. Testimony was received from four witnesses, representing 

the United States Department of Justice, the National District Attorney’s Association, Michelle Guess, a victim of gang violence, and 

Professor Robert Shepard, University of Richmond Law School, 

Richmond, Virginia, with additional material submitted by various 

organizations. 

18 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On April 12, 2005, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1279, by a vote of 5 to 3, with one member voting present, a quorum being present. On April 20, 2005, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill 

H.R. 1279 with an amendment by a recorded vote of 16 to 11, a 

quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

1279, the Committee passed an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Rep. Forbes by a rollcall vote of 15 to 10. 

1. Representative Schiff offered an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute to the Forbes amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

By a rollcall vote of 3 yeas and 22 nays, the amendment was defeated. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Inglis ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Hostettler ....................................................................................................

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Washington) ....................................................................................

Mr. Van Hollen .................................................................................................. X 

19 

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 3 22 

2. Representatives Conyers and Chris Van Hollen offered an 

amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. By a 

rollcall vote of 7 yeas and 18 nays, the amendment was defeated. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Inglis ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Hostettler ....................................................................................................

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Washington) ....................................................................................

Mr. Van Hollen .................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 7 18 

3. Representative Schiff offered an amendment to the Forbes 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. By a rollcall vote 8 yeas 

and 18 nays, the amendment as defeated. 

20 

ROLLCALL NO. 3 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) .............................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Inglis ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Hostettler ....................................................................................................

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Washington) ....................................................................................

Mr. Van Hollen .................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 8 18 

4. Representative Forbes offered an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute. By a rollcall vote 15 yeas and 10 nays, the amendment was agreed to. 

ROLLCALL NO. 4 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................

Mr. Inglis ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Hostettler ....................................................................................................

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

21 

ROLLCALL NO. 4—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Flake ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Washington) ....................................................................................

Mr. Van Hollen .................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 15 10 

5. On a motion to report H.R. 1279, as amended by an amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. By a roll all vote 

of 16 yeas and 11 nays, the motion was agreed to. 

ROLLCALL NO. 5 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................

Mr. Inglis ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Hostettler ....................................................................................................

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Flake ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

22 

ROLLCALL NO. 5—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Washington) ....................................................................................

Mr. Van Hollen .................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 16 11 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3c(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3c(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 1279, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

MAY 5, 2005. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has completed the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz (for 

federal costs) and Melissa Merrell (for the impact on state and local 

governments). 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN. 

Enclosure. 

23 

H.R. 1279—Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005 

Summary: H.R. 1279 would authorize the appropriation of nearly 

$80 million annually over the 2006–2010 period for Department of 

Justice (DOJ) programs to investigate and prosecute criminal 

street gangs and to protect witnesses and victims of gang-related 

crimes. The bill also would establish mandatory minimum prison 

sentences for certain crimes committed by members of criminal 

street gangs. 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1279 would cost about $370 million 

over the 2006–2010 period. This total includes roughly $60 million 

to incarcerate individuals in the federal prison system for longer 

periods of time than they would serve under current law. The bill 

could affect direct spending and receipts, but CBO estimates that 

any such effects would not be significant. 

H.R. 1279 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). State and local governments would benefit from the authorization of funds for certain 

programs to reduce participation in criminal street gangs; any costs 

to those governments would be incurred voluntarily. 

H.R. 1279 contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1279 is shown in the following table. The cost 

of this legislation falls within budget function 750 (administration 

of justice). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 1

Spending Under Current Law for the Federal Prison System and 

for Programs Funded by H.R. 1279: 

Budget Authorization 2 ......................................................... 5,653 5,838 6,004 6,183 6,364 6,552 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 5,743 5,943 6,037 6,208 6,361 6,538 

Proposed Changes: 

High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas: 

Authorization Level ..................................................... 0 50 50 50 50 50 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................... 0 11 30 50 50 50 

Project Safe Neighborhoods Program: 

Authorization Level ..................................................... 0 8 8 8 8 8 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................... 0 6 8 8 8 8 

Grants to Combat Violent Crimes and Protect Witnesses 

and Victims of Crimes: 

Authorization Level ..................................................... 0 20 20 20 20 20 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................... 0 4 12 20 20 20 

Total DOJ Programs to Combat Gangs: 

Authorization Level ............................................ 0 78 78 78 78 78 

Estimated Outlays ............................................. 0 22 50 78 78 78 

Federal Prison System: 

Estimated Authorization Level .................................... 0 1 9 13 15 25 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................... 0 1 9 13 15 25 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level ........................... 0 79 87 91 93 103 

Estimated Outlays ............................................. 0 23 59 91 93 103 

Spending Under H.R. 1279: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 5,653 5,916 6,090 6,273 6,457 6,654 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 5,743 5,965 6,095 6,298 6,454 6,640 

1 In addition to the amounts shown above, enacting H.R. 1279 also could affect revenues and direct spending, but CBO estimates that any 

such effects would not be significant in any year. 

24 

2 The 2005 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the federal prison system and for the DOJ programs funded by H.R. 1279. 

Figures over the 2006–2010 period are CBO’s baseline estimate for those programs, constructed by adjusting the 2005 level for anticipated 

inflation. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill 

will be enacted by the beginning of fiscal year 2006. CBO estimates 

that implementing H.R. 1279 would cost about $370 million over 

the 2006–2010 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 

funds. We also estimate that enacting the bill could increase both 

direct spending and receipts, but any such effects would not be significant in any year. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the necessary amounts will 

be appropriated by the start of each fiscal year and that spending 

will follow the historical spending patterns for these or similar activities. 

DOJ Programs to Combat Gang-Related Crimes. H.R. 1279 

would authorize the appropriation of: • $50 million for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 for 

the Attorney General to establish teams of federal, state, and local 

law enforcement agents to investigate and prosecute criminal street 

gangs in selected areas considered to be ‘‘high intensity interstate 

gang activity areas’’ and to make grants for community-based programs to prevent gang activities in those areas; • $7.5 million for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 for 

the Attorney General to expand the Project Safe Neighborhoods 

program, which requires United States Attorneys to investigate 

and prosecute criminal street gangs; and • $20 million for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 for 

grants to state and local governments to combat violent crime and 

to protect witnesses and victims of crimes. 

Federal Prison System. H.R. 1279 would establish mandatory 

minimum prison sentences for a wide range of offenses committed 

by criminal street gangs under specified circumstances. The bill 

would define street gangs as groups of three or more individuals 

who commit two or more designated crimes, including a crime of 

violence, that affect interstate or foreign commerce. Under the bill, 

gang members who commit certain crimes would, in many cases, 

be required to serve sentences of at least 10 years. 

The U.S. Sentencing Commission analyzed the impact on the federal prison population of the bill’s provisions that would require 

minimum prison sentences; by far, the greatest impact would result 

from drug trafficking offenses. The commission’s analysis was limited, however, because information about defendants’ status as 

criminal street gang members is not available and because considerable uncertainty exists as to how the bill’s mandatory minimum 

sentences might affect defendants’ willingness to accept plea bargains. 

Based on several analyses prepared by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, CBO estimates that the longer sentences required under 

the bill would increase the prison population by 100 prisoners a 

year initially, and that this number would grow to roughly 900 

prisoners a year by fiscal year 2010. However, the increase in prison population resulting from H.R. 1279 could be higher or lower 

than these figures, depending on the number of defendants determined to be street gang members and thus subject to minimum 

25 

sentences. (If the increase in prison population is significantly 

higher than estimated, construction of a new federal prison might 

be required.) According to the Bureau of Prisons, for an increase 

in the federal prison population of this magnitude, it would spend 

about $24,000 a year (at 2005 prices) to house each additional prisoner. CBO estimates that the cost to support these additional prisoners would total $62 million over the 2006–2010 period. 

Direct spending and receipts 

H.R. 1279 would establish new and increased criminal penalties 

for various crimes involving criminal street gangs. Thus, the federal government might collect additional fines if the bill is enacted. 

Collections of criminal fines are deposited in the Crime Victims 

Fund and later spent. CBO expects that any additional receipts 

and direct spending would not be significant. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: This 

bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined by UMRA. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, state and local 

law enforcement and prosecutors could receive up to $100 million 

in federal assistance over the next five years to combat gang activity; any costs to those governments would be incurred voluntarily. 

Those governments also would benefit from expanded programs of 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorneys to identify and prosecute criminal street gangs. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 1279 contains no 

new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz. Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell. Impact 

on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3c(4) of Rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 1279, is intended to reduce the incidence of violent gang crimes and deter and 

punish criminal gang activity by providing stronger penalties for 

such crimes and by providing additional resources to Federal, State 

and local law enforcement to combat gang violence. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article I, section 8, of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

TITLE I—CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS AND ENHANCED PENALTIES TO

DETER AND PUNISH ILLEGAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY AND RELATED

REFORMS

Sec. 101. Revision and Extension of Penalties Related to Criminal 

Street Gang Activity. This section revises existing section 521 of 

26 

title 18, United State Code, to prohibit gang crimes that are committed in order to further the activities of a criminal street gang. 

A ‘‘criminal street gang’’ is defined to mean a formal or informal 

group or association who commit 2 or more predicate gang crimes, 

one of which is a crime of violence. The term ‘‘gang crime’’ is defined to include violent and other serious State and Federal felony 

crimes. The penalty for committing a gang crime depends on the 

seriousness of the offense: (a) death or life imprisonment for any 

crime resulting in death; (b) mandatory minimum of 30 years with 

a maximum of life for kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or 

maiming; c mandatory minimum of 20 years to life for an assault 

resulting in serious bodily injury; and (d) mandatory minimum of 

10 years to life imprisonment for any other gang crime. 

Sec. 102. Increased Penalties for Interstate and Foreign Travel or 

Transportation in Aid of Racketeering. This section expands existing section 1952 of title 18, United States Code, to increase penalties and simplifies the elements of the offense. 

Sec. 103. Amendments Relating to Violent Crime. This section 

amends criminal statutes relating to definition and penalties for 

carjacking (section 2119), illegal gun transfers to drug traffickers 

or violent criminals (section 924(g)), special sentencing provisions 

(section 3582(d)), and conspiracy to defraud the United States (section 371). 

Sec. 104. Increased Penalties for Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in the Commission of Murder-For-Hire and Other Felony 

Crimes of Violence. This section amends existing section 1958 of 

title 18, United States Code, to increase penalties for use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire 

and other felony crimes of violence. 

Sec. 105. Increased Penalties for Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity. This section amends existing section 1959(a) of title 

18, United States Code, to increase penalties and expand the prohibition to include aggravated sexual abuse. 

Sec. 106. Murder and Other Violent Crimes Committed During 

and In Relation to a Drug Trafficking Crime. This section fills a 

gap in existing Federal law and creates a new criminal offense for 

violent acts committed during and in relation to a drug trafficking 

crime. 

Sec. 107. Multiple Interstate Murder. This section creates a new 

criminal offense for traveling in or causing another to travel in 

interstate or foreign commerce or to use any facility in interstate 

or foreign commerce with the intent that 2 or more murders be 

committed in violation of the laws of any State or the United 

States. 

Sec. 108. Additional Racketeering Activity. This section modifies 

the list of RICO predicates to clarify applicability of predicate offense which occur on Indian country (as defined in section 1151) or 

in any other area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. 

Sec. 109. Expansion of Rebuttable Presumption Against Release of 

Persons Charged with Firearms. This section applies the rebuttable 

presumption in pre-trial release detention hearings to cases in 

which a defendant is charged with firearms offenses after having 

previously been convicted of a prior crime of violence or a serious 

drug offense. 

27 

Sec. 110. Venue in Capital Cases. This section amends section 

3235 of title 18 to clarify venue in capital cases where murder, or 

related conduct, occurred. The existing venue provision restricts 

venue in criminal cases where murder occurs in relation to racketeering, drug conspiracy, or criminal street gangs 

Sec. 111. Statute of Limitations for Violent Crime. This section 

extends the statute of limitations for violent crime cases from 5 

years to 15 years after the offense occurred or the continuing offense was completed. 

Sec. 112. Clarification of Definition of Crime of Violence. This 

section amends the definition of a crime of violence in response to 

recent restrictive court decisions and broadens the definition to include certain drug trafficking crimes. 

Sec. 113. Clarification to Hearsay Exception for Forfeiture by 

Wrongdoing. This section codifies the holding in United States v. 

Cherry, 217 F.3d 811 (10th Cir. 2000), which permits admission of 

statements of a murdered witness to be introduced against the defendant who caused a witness’ unavailability and the members of 

the conspiracy if such actions were foreseeable to the other members of the conspiracy. 

Sec. 114. Increased Penalties for Criminal Use of Firearms in 

Crimes of Violence and Drug Trafficking. This section increases the 

penalty for the use or discharge of a firearm in a crime of violence 

or drug trafficking crime. The penalties are increased further if the 

firearm injures a person. 

Sec. 115. Transfer of Violent Juvenile Offenders. This section authorizes the Attorney General to charge as an adult in Federal 

court a juvenile who is 16 years or older and commits a crime of 

violence. 

TITLE II—INCREASED FEDERAL RESOURCES TO DETER AND PREVENT

AT-RISK YOUTH FROM JOINING ILLEGAL STREET GANGS

Sec. 201. Designation of and Assistance for ‘‘High Intensity’’ Interstate Gang Activity Areas. This section requires the Attorney General, after consultation with the Governors of appropriate states, to 

designate certain locations as high intensity interstate gang activity areas and provides assistance in the form of criminal street 

gang enforcement teams made up of local, state and Federal law 

enforcement authorities to investigate and prosecute criminal 

street gangs in each high intensity interstate gang activity area. 

Subsection (e) authorizes funding of $50 million for each fiscal year 

2005 through 2009. 

Sec. 202. Grants to States and Local Prosecutors to Combat Violent Crime. This section authorizes $20 million for each of the fiscal 

years 2005 to 2009 to allow for the hiring of additional state and 

local prosecutors, and the purchasing of technological equipment to 

increase the accurate identification and prosecution of violent offenders 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074
28 

ted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—CRIMES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 16. Crime of violence defined 

The term ‘‘crime of violence’’ means— (a) * * * 

ø(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the 

person or property of another may be used in the course of 

committing the offense.¿ 

(b) any other offense that is an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and that, by its nature, involves 

a substantial risk that physical force may be used against the 

person or property of another, or is an offense punishable under 

subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 19—CONSPIRACY 

* * * * * * * 

§ 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United 

States 

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense 

against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any 

agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more 

of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, 

each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 

øfive¿ 20 years, or both. 

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of 

the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such 

conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for 

such misdemeanor. 

* * * * * * * 

øCHAPTER 26—CRIMINAL STREET GANGS 

øSec. 

ø521. Criminal street gangs 

ø§ 521. Criminal street gangs 

ø(a) DEFINITIONS.—

29 

ø‘‘conviction’’ includes a finding, under State or Federal law, 

that a person has committed an act of juvenile delinquency involving a violent or controlled substances felony. 

ø‘‘criminal street gang’’ means an ongoing group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons— ø(A) that has as 1 of its primary purposes the commission of 1 or more of the criminal offenses described in subsection (c); 

ø(B) the members of which engage, or have engaged 

within the past 5 years, in a continuing series of offenses 

described in subsection (c); and 

ø(C) the activities of which affect interstate or foreign 

commerce. 

ø‘‘State’’ means a State of the United States, the District of 

Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of 

the United States. 

ø(b) PENALTY.—The sentence of a person convicted of an offense 

described in subsection (c) shall be increased by up to 10 years if 

the offense is committed under the circumstances described in subsection (d). 

ø(c) OFFENSES.—The offenses described in this section are— ø(1) a Federal felony involving a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

U.S.C. 802)) for which the maximum penalty is not less than 

5 years; 

ø(2) a Federal felony crime of violence that has as an element the use or attempted use of physical force against the 

person of another; and 

ø(3) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2). 

ø(d) CIRCUMSTANCES.—The circumstances described in this section are that the offense described in subsection (c) was committed 

by a person who— ø(1) participates in a criminal street gang with knowledge 

that its members engage in or have engaged in a continuing 

series of offenses described in subsection (c); 

ø(2) intends to promote or further the felonious activities of 

the criminal street gang or maintain or increase his or her position in the gang; and 

ø(3) has been convicted within the past 5 years for—

ø(A) an offense described in subsection (c); 

ø(B) a State offense—

ø(i) involving a controlled substance (as defined in 

section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

U.S.C. 802)) for which the maximum penalty is not 

less than 5 years’ imprisonment; or 

ø(ii) that is a felony crime of violence that has as an 

element the use or attempted use of physical force 

against the person of another; 

ø(C) any Federal or State felony offense that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against 

the person of another may be used in the course of committing the offense; or 

ø(D) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).¿ 

30 

CHAPTER 26—CRIMINAL STREET GANGS 

Sec. 

521. Criminal street gang prosecutions. 

§ 521. Criminal street gang prosecutions 

(a) STREET GANG CRIME.—Whoever commits, or conspires, threatens or attempts to commit, a gang crime for the purpose of furthering the activities of a criminal street gang, or gaining entrance 

to or maintaining or increasing position in such a gang, shall, in 

addition to being subject to a fine under this title— (1) if the gang crime results in the death of any person, be 

sentenced to death or life in prison; 

(2) if the gang crime is kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, 

or maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of years not less 

than 30; 

(3) if the gang crime is assault resulting in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for life or any 

term of years not less than 20; and 

(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any term 

of years not less than 10. 

(b) FORFEITURE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The court, in imposing sentence on any person convicted of a violation of this section, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of any provision of State law, that such person shall forfeit to the United 

States such person’s interest in— (A) any property used, or intended to be used, in any 

manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission 

of, the violation; and 

(B) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result 

of the violation. 

(2) APPLICATION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.—Subsections (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), and 

(p) of section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 

853) shall apply to a forfeiture under this section as though it 

were a forfeiture under that section. 

(c) DEFINITIONS.—The following definitions apply in this section: 

(1) CRIMINAL STREET GANG.—The term ‘‘criminal street gang’’ means a formal or informal group or association of 3 or more 

individuals, who commit 2 or more gang crimes (one of which 

is a crime of violence other than an offense punishable under 

subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act), in 2 or more separate criminal episodes, in relation to the group or association, if any of the activities of the criminal street gang affects interstate or foreign 

commerce. 

(2) GANG CRIME.—The term ‘‘gang crime’’ means conduct constituting any Federal or State crime, punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, in any of the following categories: 

(A) A crime of violence. 

(B) A crime involving obstruction of justice, tampering 

with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant, 

or burglary. 

31 

(C) A crime involving the manufacturing, importing, distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or otherwise 

dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as 

those terms are defined in section 102 of the Controlled 

Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)). 

(D) Any conduct punishable under section 844 (relating 

to explosive materials), subsection (a)(1), (d), (g)(1) (where 

the underlying conviction is a violent felony (as defined in 

section 924(e)(2)(B) of this title) or is a serious drug offense 

(as defined in section 924(e)(2)(A))), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), 

(g)(5), (g)(8), (g)(9), (i), (j), (k), (n), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of 

section 922 (relating to unlawful acts), or subsection (b), (c), 

(g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of section 924 (relating to penalties), section 930 (relating to possession of firearms and 

dangerous weapons in Federal facilities), section 931 (relating to purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by 

violent felons), sections 1028 and 1029 (relating to fraud 

and related activity in connection with identification documents or access devices), section 1952 (relating to interstate 

and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering 

enterprises), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of 

monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging 

in monetary transactions in property derived from specified 

unlawful activity), or sections 2312 through 2315 (relating 

to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles or stolen property). 

(E) Any conduct punishable under section 274 (relating 

to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 

(relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the 

United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of 

alien for immoral purpose) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

(3) AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE.—The term ‘‘aggravated sexual abuse’’ means an offense that, if committed in the special 

maritime and territorial jurisdiction would be an offense under 

section 2241(a). 

(4) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of the several States 

of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 44—FIREARMS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 924. Penalties 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c)(1)(A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence 

is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision 

of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or 

drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment 

if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) 

for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United 

32 

States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such 

crime, possesses a firearm, øshall¿ or conspires to commit any of 

the above acts, shall, for each instance in which the firearm is used, 

carried, or possessed, in addition to the punishment provided for 

such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime— (i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less 

than ø5¿ 7 years; 

ø(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term 

of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and 

ø(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term 

of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.¿ 

(ii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term 

of imprisonment of not less than 15 years; and 

(iii) if the firearm is used to wound, injure, or maim another person, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not 

less than 20 years. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘brandish’’ means, 

with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or 

otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the 

firearm is directly visible to that person.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

ø(h) Whoever knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing that such 

firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence (as defined in 

subsection (c)(3)) or drug trafficking crime (as defined in subsection 

(c)(2)) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both.¿ 

(h) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing or intending that the firearm 

will be used to commit, or possessed in furtherance of, a crime of 

violence or drug trafficking crime, shall be fined under this title and 

imprisoned not less than 5 years nor more than 20 years. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(o) A person who conspires to commit an offense under subsection (c) shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, fined 

under this title, or both; and if the firearm is a machinegun or destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or muffler, 

shall be imprisoned for any term of years or life.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 51—HOMICIDE 

Sec. 

1111. Murder 

* * * * * * * 

1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of multiple murder. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of multiple murder 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever travels in or causes another (including 

the intended victim) to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or 

33 

uses or causes another (including the intended victim) to use the 

mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, or who conspires or attempts to do so, with intent that 2 or more intentional 

homicides be committed in violation of the laws of any State or the 

United States shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under this 

title— (1) if the offense results in the death of any person, be sentenced to death or life in prison; 

(2) if the offense results is assault resulting in serious bodily 

injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for life or any 

term of years not less than 20; and 

(3) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any term 

of years not less than 10. 

(b) DEFINITION.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of the several 

States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 95—RACKETEERING 

Sec. 

1951. Interference with commerce by threats or violence. 

ø1952. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises.¿ 

1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to racketeering. 

* * * * * * * 

ø1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire.¿ 

1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire and 

other felony crimes of violence. 

* * * * * * * 

ø§ 1952. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in 

aid of racketeering enterprises¿ 

§ 1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to racketeering 

(a)(1) Whoever øtravels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses 

the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to¿, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce—

ø(1) distribute¿ (A) distributes the proceeds of any unlawful 

activity; or 

ø(2) commit¿ (B) commits any crime of violence to further 

any unlawful activity; or 

ø(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate¿ (C) otherwise promotes, manages, establishes, carries on, 

or facilitates the promotion, management, establishment, or 

carrying on, of any unlawful activity, 

øand thereafter performs or attempts to perform—

ø(A) an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) shall be fined 

under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; or 

ø(B) an act described in paragraph (2) shall be fined under 

this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and 

if death results shall be imprisoned for any term of years or 

for life.¿ 

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in 

paragraph (2). 

34 

(2) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is— (A) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A) or (C) of 

paragraph (1), a fine under this title and imprisonment for not 

less than 5 nor more than 20 years; and 

(B) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), a fine under this title and imprisonment for not less 

than 10 nor more than 30 years, but if death results the offender shall be sentenced to death, or to imprisonment for any 

term of years or for life. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1956. Laundering of monetary instruments 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) As used in this section— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(7) the term ‘‘specified unlawful activity’’ means— (A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) an offense under section 32 (relating to the destruction of aircraft), section 37 (relating to violence at international airports), section 115 (relating to influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member), section 152 (relating 

to concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery), 

section 175c (relating to the variola virus), section 215 (relating to commissions or gifts for procuring loans), section 

351 (relating to congressional or Cabinet officer assassination), any of sections 500 through 503 (relating to certain 

counterfeiting offenses), section 513 (relating to securities 

of States and private entities), section 521 (relating to 

criminal street gang prosecutions), section 541 (relating to 

goods falsely classified), section 542 relating to entry of 

goods by means of false statements), section 545 (relating 

to smuggling goods into the United States), section 549 

(relating to removing goods from Customs custody), section 

641 (relating to public money, property, or records), section 

656 (relating to theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by 

bank officer or employee), section 657 (relating to lending, 

credit, and insurance institutions), section 658 (relating to 

property mortgaged or pledged to farm credit agencies), 

section 666 (relating to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds), section 793, 794, or 798 

(relating to espionage), section 831 (relating to prohibited 

transactions involving nuclear materials), section 844 (f) or 

(i) (relating to destruction by explosives or fire of Government property or property affecting interstate or foreign 

commerce), section 875 (relating to interstate communications), section 922(1) (relating to the unlawful importation 

of firearms), section 924(n) (relating to firearms trafficking), section 956 (relating to conspiracy to kill, kidnap, 

maim, or injure certain property in a foreign country), secVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074
35 

tion 1005 (relating to fraudulent bank entries), 1006 (relating to fraudulent Federal credit institution entries), 1007 

(relating to Federal Deposit Insurance transactions), 1014 

(relating to fraudulent loan or credit applications), section 

1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse), 1032 (relating to concealment of assets from conservator, receiver, or 

liquidating agent of financial institution), section 1111 (relating to murder), section 1114 (relating to murder of 

United States law enforcement officials), section 1116 (relating to murder of foreign officials, official guests, or 

internationally protected persons), section 1201 (relating to 

kidnaping), section 1203 (relating to hostage taking), section 1361 (relating to willful injury of Government property), section 1363 (relating to destruction of property 

within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 

section 1708 (theft from the mail), section 1751 (relating to 

Presidential assassination), section 2113 or 2114 (relating 

to bank and postal robbery and theft), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), section 2281 

(relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), section 2319 (relating to copyright infringement), section 2320 

(relating to trafficking in counterfeit goods and services), 

section 2332 (relating to terrorist acts abroad against 

United States nationals), section 2332a (relating to use of 

weapons of mass destruction), section 2332b (relating to 

international terrorist acts transcending national boundaries), section 2332g (relating to missile systems designed 

to destroy aircraft), section 2332h (relating to radiological 

dispersal devices), or section 2339A or 2339B (relating to 

providing material support to terrorists) of this title, section 46502 of title 49, United States Code, a felony violation of the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988 

(relating to precursor and essential chemicals), section 590 

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1590) (relating to aviation smuggling), section 422 of the Controlled Substances 

Act (relating to transportation of drug paraphernalia), section 38(c) (relating to criminal violations) of the Arms Export Control Act, section 11 (relating to violations) of the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, section 206 (relating to 

penalties) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, section 16 (relating to offenses and punishment) of 

the Trading with the Enemy Act, any felony violation of 

section 15 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (relating to food 

stamp fraud) involving a quantity of coupons having a 

value of not less than $5,000, any violation of section 

543(a)(1) of the Housing Act of 1949 (relating to equity 

skimming), any felony violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, any felony violation of the Foreign 

Corrupt Practices Act, or section 92 of the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2122) (relating to prohibitions governing atomic weapons) 

* * * * * * * 

36 

ø§ 1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire¿ 

§ 1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire and other felony crimes of 

violence 

(a) Whoever travels in or causes another (including the intended 

victim) to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or 

causes another (including the intended victim) to use the mail or 

any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, with intent that a 

murder or other crime of violence, punishable by imprisonment for 

more than one year, be committed in violation of the laws of any 

State or the United States as consideration for the receipt of, or as 

consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value, or who conspires to do so, øshall be fined under this 

title or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and if personal injury results, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 

for not more than twenty years, or both; and if death results, shall 

be punished by death or life imprisonment, or shall be fined not 

more than $250,000, or both.¿ shall, in addition to being subject to 

a fine under this title 

(1) if the crime of violence or conspiracy results in the death 

of any person, be sentenced to death or life in prison; 

(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated sexual 

abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, or a conspiracy 

to commit such a crime of violence, be imprisoned for life or any 

term of years not less than 30; 

(3) if the crime of violence is an assault, or a conspiracy to 

assault, that results in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for life or any term of years not less 

than 20; and 

(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any term 

of years not less than 10. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1959. Violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity 

ø(a) Whoever, as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary 

value from an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for 

the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, murders, 

kidnaps, maims, assaults with a dangerous weapon, commits assault resulting in serious bodily injury upon, or threatens to commit a crime of violence against any individual in violation of the 

laws of any State or the United States, or attempts or conspires so 

to do, shall be punished—

ø(1) for murder, by death or life imprisonment, or a fine 

under this title, or both; and for kidnapping, by imprisonment 

for any term of years or for life, or a fine under this title, or 

both; 

ø(2) for maiming, by imprisonment for not more than thirty 

years or a fine under this title, or both; 

37 

ø(3) for assault with a dangerous weapon or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than 

twenty years or a fine under this title, or both; 

ø(4) for threatening to commit a crime of violence, by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine under this title, 

or both; 

ø(5) for attempting or conspiring to commit murder or kidnapping, by imprisonment for not more than ten years or a 

fine under this title, or both; and 

ø(6) for attempting or conspiring to commit a crime involving 

maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than 

three years or a fine of under this title, or both.¿ 

(a) Whoever commits, or conspires, threatens, or attempts to commit, a crime of violence for the purpose of furthering the activities 

of an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for the purpose 

of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in, 

such an enterprise, shall, unless the death penalty is otherwise imposed, in addition and consecutive to the punishment provided for 

any other violation of this chapter and in addition to being subject 

to a fine under this title— (1) if the crime of violence results in the death of any person, 

be sentenced to death or life in prison; 

(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated sexual 

abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, be imprisoned 

for life or any term of years not less than 30; 

(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for life or 

for any term of years not less than 20; and 

(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any term 

of years not less than 10. 

* * * * * * * 

(c) A prosecution for a violation of this section may be brought 

in— (1) the judicial district in which the crime of violence occurred; or 

(2) any judicial district in which racketeering activity of the 

enterprise occurred. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 96—RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT 

ORGANIZATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1961. Definitions 

As used in this chapter—

(1) ‘‘racketeering activity’’ means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled 

substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the 

Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State 

law, or would have been so chargeable if the act or threat had 

not been committed in Indian country (as defined in section 

1151) or in any other area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, and 

38 

punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any 

act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of 

title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), 

section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 

473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft 

from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 

659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from 

pension and welfare funds), sections 891–894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and 

related activity in connection with identification documents), 

section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1123 (relating to 

interstate murder), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 

(relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship 

papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or 

citizenship papers), sections 1461–1465 (relating to obscene 

matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 

1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 

1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating 

against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 

1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to 

fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 1581–1591 (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking 

in persons)., section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of 

wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful 

welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to 

the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived 

from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use 

of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murderfor-hire), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating 

to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 

2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen 

property) , section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit 

labels for phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to 

criminal infringement of a copyright), section 2319A (relating 

to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings 

and music videos of live musical performances), section 2320 

(relating to trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit 

marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor 

vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341–2346 (relating 

39 

to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421–24 (relating to white slave traffic), sections 175–178 (relating to biological weapons), sections 229-F (relating to chemical weapons), 

section 831 (relating to nuclear materials),(C) any act which is 

indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501(c) (relating to embezzlement from union 

funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case 

under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title), 

fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, 

importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States, (E) any act which is 

indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, (F) any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in 

and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or 

assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 

278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the 

act indictable under such section of such Act was committed 

for the purpose of financial gain, or (G) any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B). 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 103—ROBBERY AND BURGLARY 

* * * * * * * 

§ 2119. Motor vehicles 

Whoeverø, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm¿ 

takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall—

(1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 

ø15¿ 20 years, or both, 

(2) if serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this 

title, including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in the 

special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United 

States, would violate section 2241 or 2242 of this title) results, 

be fined under this title øor imprisoned not more than 25 

years, or both¿ and imprisoned not less than 10 years nor more 

than 30 years, and 

* * * * * * * 

PART II—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 207—RELEASE AND DETENTION PENDING 

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS 

* * * * * * * 

40 

§ 3142. Release or detention of a defendant pending trial 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) DETENTION.—If, after a hearing pursuant to the provisions of 

subsection (f) of this section, the judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person 

and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention 

of the person before trial. In a case described in subsection (f)(1) 

of this section, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition 

or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of 

any other person and the community if such judicial officer finds 

that—

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

Subject to rebuttal by the person, it shall be presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community 

if the judicial officer finds that there is probable cause to believe 

that the person committed an offense under subsection (g)(1) (where 

the underlying conviction is a drug trafficking crime (as defined in 

section 924(c))), (g)(2), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), or (g)(9) of section 922, 

or a crime of violence, an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled 

Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Substances 

Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), or the Maritime 

Drug Law Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.), an offense under section 924(c), 956(a), or 2332b of this title, or an offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18, United States 

Code, for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or 

more is prescribed or an offense involving a minor victim under 

section 1201, 1591, 2241, 2242, 2244(a)(1), 2245, 2251, 2251A, 

2252(a)(1), 2252(a)(2), 2252(a)(3), 2252A(a)(1), 2252A(a)(2), 

2252A(a)(3), 2252A(a)(4), 2260, 2421, 2422, 2423, or 2425 of this 

title. 

* * * * * * * 

(g) FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.—The judicial officer shall, in 

determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the 

safety of any other person and the community, take into account 

the available information concerning—

ø(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence, or an offense 

listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) for which a maximum term of 

imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed or involves a 

narcotic drug;¿ 

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence, or involves 

a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive devise; 

* * * * * * * 

41 

CHAPTER 211—JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

* * * * * * * 

ø§ 3235. Venue in capital cases 

øThe trial of offenses punishable with death shall be had in the 

county where the offense was committed, where that can be done 

without great inconvenience.¿ 

§ 3235. Venue in capital cases 

(a) The trial for any offense punishable by death shall be held in 

the district where the offense was committed or in any district in 

which the offense began, continued, or was completed. 

(b) If the offense, or related conduct, under subsection (a) involves 

activities which affect interstate or foreign commerce, or the importation of an object or person into the United States, such offense 

may be prosecuted in any district in which those activities occurred. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 213—LIMITATIONS 

Sec. 

3281. Capital offenses. 

* * * * * * * 

3298. Violent crime offenses. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3298. Violent crime offenses 

No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital felony, crime of violence, including any racketeering activity or 

gang crime which involves any crime of violence, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted not later than 15 

years after the date on which the alleged violation occurred or the 

continuing offense was completed. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 227—SENTENCES 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER D—IMPRISONMENT 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3582. Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) INCLUSION OF AN ORDER TO LIMIT CRIMINAL ASSOCIATION OF

ORGANIZED CRIME AND DRUG OFFENDERS.—The court, in imposing 

a sentence to a term of imprisonment upon a defendant convicted 

of a felony set forth in section 521 (criminal street gang prosecutions), in chapter 95 (racketeering) or 96 (racketeer influenced and 

corrupt organizations) of this title or in the Comprehensive Drug 

Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

or at any time thereafter upon motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons or a United States attorney, may include as a part 

42 

of the sentence an order that requires that the defendant not associate or communicate with a øspecified person, other than his attorney, upon¿ specified person upon a showing of probable cause to believe that association or communication with such person is for the 

purpose of enabling the defendant to control, manage, direct, finance, or otherwise participate in a criminal street gang or an illegal enterprise. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 232—MISCELLANEOUS SENTENCING 

PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3663. Order of restitution 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) The court shall not make an award under this subsection if 

it appears likely that such award would interfere with a forfeiture 

under øchapter 46 or chapter 96 of this title¿ section 521, under 

chapter 46 or 96, or under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 

801 et seq.). 

* * * * * * * 

PART IV—CORRECTION OF YOUTHFUL 

OFFENDERS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 403—JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 

* * * * * * * 

§ 5032. Delinquency proceedings in district courts; transfer 

for criminal prosecution 

A juvenile alleged to have committed an act of juvenile delinquency, other than a violation of law committed within the special 

maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States for which 

the maximum authorized term of imprisonment does not exceed six 

months, shall not be proceeded against in any court of the United 

States unless the Attorney General, after investigation, certifies to 

the appropriate district court of the United States that (1) the juvenile court or other appropriate court of a State does not have jurisdiction or refuses to assume jurisdiction over said juvenile with respect to such alleged act of juvenile delinquency, (2) the State does 

not have available programs and services adequate for the needs 

of juveniles, or (3) the offense charged is a crime of violence that 

is a felony or an offense described in section 401 of the Controlled 

Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841), or section 1002(a), 1003, 1005, 

1009, or 1010(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Controlled Substances Import 

and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a), 953, 955, 959, 960(b)(1), (2), (3)), 

section 922(x) or section 924(b), (g), or (h) of this title, and that 

43 

there is a substantial Federal interest in the case or the offense to 

warrant the exercise of Federal jurisdiction. 

If the Attorney General does not so certify, such juvenile shall be 

surrendered to the appropriate legal authorities of such State. For 

purposes of this section, the term ‘‘State’’ includes a State of the 

United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 

territory, or possession of the United States. 

If an alleged juvenile delinquent is not surrendered to the authorities of a State pursuant to this section, any proceedings 

against him shall be in an appropriate district court of the United 

States. For such purposes, the court may be convened at any time 

and place within the district, in chambers or otherwise. The Attorney General shall proceed by information or as authorized under 

section 3401(g) of this title, and no criminal prosecution shall be instituted for the alleged act of juvenile delinquency except as provided below. 

øA juvenile¿ Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an act of juvenile delinquency and who is not surrendered to State authorities shall be 

proceeded against under this chapter unless he has requested in 

writing upon advice of counsel to be proceeded against øas an 

adult, except that, with¿ as an adult. With respect to a juvenile fifteen years and older alleged to have committed an act after his fifteenth birthday which if committed by an adult would be a felony 

that is a crime of violence or an offense described in section 401 

of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841), or section 

1002(a), 1005, or 1009 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a), 955, 959), or section 922(x) of this title, 

or in section 924(b), (g), or (h) of this title, criminal prosecution on 

the basis of the alleged act may be begun by motion to transfer of 

the Attorney General in the appropriate district court of the United 

States, if such court finds, after hearing, such transfer would be in 

the interest of justice. In the application of the preceding sentence, 

if the crime of violence is an offense under section 113(a), 113(b), 

113(c), 1111, 1113, or, if the juvenile possessed a firearm during 

the offense, section 2111, 2113, 2241(a), or 2241(c), ‘‘thirteen’’ shall 

be substituted for ‘‘fifteen’’ and ‘‘thirteenth’’ shall be substituted for 

‘‘fifteenth’’. Notwithstanding sections 1152 and 1153, no person 

subject to the criminal jurisdiction of an Indian tribal government 

shall be subject to the preceding sentence for any offense the Federal jurisdiction for which is predicated solely on Indian country (as 

defined in section 1151), and which has occurred within the boundaries of such Indian country, unless the governing body of the tribe 

has elected that the preceding sentence have effect over land and 

persons subject to its criminal jurisdiction. øHowever, a juvenile 

who is alleged to have committed an act after his sixteenth birthday which if committed by an adult would be a felony offense that 

has as an element thereof the use, attempted use, or threatened 

use of physical force against the person of another, or that, by its 

very nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against 

the person of another may be used in committing the offense, or 

would be an offense described in section 32, 81, 844(d), (e), (f), (h), 

(i) or 2275 of this title, subsection (b)(1)(A), (B), or (C), (d), or (e) 

of section 401 of the Controlled Substances Act, or section 1002(a), 

1003, 1009, or 1010(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Controlled Substances 

44 

Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a), 953, 959, 960(b)(1), (2), 

(3)), and who has previously been found guilty of an act which if 

committed by an adult would have been one of the offenses set 

forth in this paragraph or an offense in violation of a State felony 

statute that would have been such an offense if a circumstance giving rise to Federal jurisdiction had existed, shall be transferred to 

the appropriate district court of the United States for criminal 

prosecution.¿ The Attorney General may prosecute as an adult a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an act after that juvenile’s 

16th birthday which if committed by an adult would be a crime of 

violence that is a felony, an offense described in subsection (d), (i), 

(j), (k), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating to unlawful 

acts), or subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of section 924 

(relating to penalties), section 930 (relating to possession of firearms 

and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities), or section 931 (relating to purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent 

felons). The decision whether or not to prosecute a juvenile as an 

adult under the immediately preceding sentence is not subject to judicial review in any court. In a prosecution under that sentence, the 

juvenile may be prosecuted and convicted as an adult for any other 

offense which is properly joined under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and may also be convicted as an adult of any lesser 

included offense. 

Evidence of the following factors shall be considered, and findings with regard to each factor shall be made in the record, in assessing whether a transfer would be in the interest of justice: the 

age and social background of the juvenile; the nature of the alleged 

offense; the extent and nature of the juvenile’s prior delinquency 

record; the juvenile’s present intellectual development and psychological maturity; the nature of past treatment efforts and the juvenile’s response to such efforts; the availability of programs designed 

to treat the juvenile’s behavioral problems. In considering the nature of the offense, as required by this paragraph, the court shall 

consider the extent to which the juvenile played a leadership role 

in an organization, or otherwise influenced other persons to take 

part in criminal activities, involving the use or distribution of controlled substances or firearms. Such a factor, if found to exist, shall 

weigh in favor of a transfer to adult status, but the absence of this 

factor shall not preclude such a transfer. 

Reasonable notice of the transfer hearing shall be given to the 

juvenile, his parents, guardian, or custodian and to his counsel. 

The juvenile shall be assisted by counsel during the transfer hearing, and at every other critical stage of the proceedings. 

Once a juvenile has entered a plea of guilty or the proceeding has 

reached the stage that evidence has begun to be taken with respect 

to a crime or an alleged act of juvenile delinquency subsequent 

criminal prosecution or juvenile proceedings based upon such alleged act of delinquency shall be barred. 

Statements made by a juvenile prior to or during a transfer hearing under this section shall not be admissible at subsequent criminal prosecutions. 

Whenever a juvenile transferred to district court under this section is not convicted of the crime upon which the transfer was 

based or another crime which would have warranted transfer had 

the juvenile been initially charged with that crime, further proVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074
45 

ceedings concerning the juvenile shall be conducted pursuant to the 

provisions of this chapter. 

A juvenile shall not be transferred to adult prosecution nor shall 

a hearing be held under section 5037 (disposition after a finding of 

juvenile delinquency) until any prior juvenile court records of such 

juvenile have been received by the court, or the clerk of the juvenile court has certified in writing that the juvenile has no prior 

record, or that the juvenile’s record is unavailable and why it is unavailable. 

Whenever a juvenile is adjudged delinquent pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the specific acts which the juvenile has been 

found to have committed shall be described as part of the official 

record of the proceedings and part of the juvenile’s official record. 

* * * * * * * 

COMPREHENSIVE DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND 

CONTROL ACT OF 1970 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE II—CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT

* * * * * * * 

PART D—OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

Sec. 401. Prohibited acts A—penalties. 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation to a 

drug trafficking crime. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT 

SHORT TITLE

SEC. 100. This title may be cited as the ‘‘Controlled Substances 

Act’’. 

* * * * * * * 

PART D—OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

* * * * * * * 

MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED DURING AND IN

RELATION TO A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME

SEC. 424. (a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever commits, or conspires, or attempts to commit, a crime of violence during and in relation to a 

drug trafficking crime, shall, unless the death penalty is otherwise 

imposed, in addition and consecutive to the punishment provided 

for the drug trafficking crime and in addition to being subject to a 

fine under this title—

(1) if the crime of violence results in the death of any person, 

be sentenced to death or life in prison; 

46 

(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated sexual 

abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, be imprisoned 

for life or any term of years not less than 30; 

(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for life or 

any term of years not less than 20; and 

(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any term 

of years not less than 10. 

(b) VENUE.—A prosecution for a violation of this section may be 

brought in—

(1) the judicial district in which the murder or other crime 

of violence occurred; or 

(2) any judicial district in which the drug trafficking crime 

may be prosecuted. 

(c) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—

(1) the term ‘‘crime of violence’’ has the meaning given that 

term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code; and 

(2) the term ‘‘drug trafficking crime’’ has the meaning given 

that term in section 924(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code. 

* * * * * * * 

RULE 804 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; declarant unavailable 

(a) * * * 

(b) HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS.—The following are not excluded by the 

hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(6) FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING.—A statement offered 

against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing 

that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the 

declarant as a witness.¿ 

(6) FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING.—A statement offered 

against a party who has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing, 

or who could reasonably foresee such wrongdoing would take 

place, if the wrongdoing was intended to, and did, procure the 

unavailability of the declarant as a witness. 

VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT 

ACT OF 1994 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—CRIME PREVENTION 

* * * * * * * 

47 

Subtitle Q—Community-Based Justice 

Grants for Prosecutors 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 31702. USE OF FUNDS. 

Grants made by the Attorney General under this section shall be 

used—

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) to fund programs that coordinate criminal justice resources with educational, social service, and community resources to develop and deliver violence prevention programs, 

including mediation and other conflict resolution methods, 

treatment, counseling, educational, and recreational programs 

that create alternatives to criminal activity; øand¿ 

(4) in rural States (as defined in section 1501(b) of title I of 

the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 3796bb(B)), to fund cooperative efforts between State 

and local prosecutors, victim advocacy and assistance groups, 

social and community service providers, and law enforcement 

agencies to investigate and prosecute child abuse cases, treat 

youthful victims of child abuse, and work in cooperation with 

the community to develop education and prevention strategies 

directed toward the issues with which such entities are 

concernedø.¿; 

(5) to hire additional prosecutors to—

(A) allow more cases to be prosecuted; and 

(B) reduce backlogs; 

(6) to fund technology, equipment, and training for prosecutors and law enforcement in order to increase accurate identification of gang members and violent offenders, and to maintain databases with such information to facilitate coordination 

among law enforcement and prosecutors; and 

(7) to fund technology, equipment, and training for prosecutors to increase the accurate identification and successful prosecution of young violent offenders. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

øThere are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subtitle—

ø(1) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1996; 

ø(2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; 

ø(3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; 

ø(4) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and 

ø(5) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.¿ 

SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each of 

the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to carry out this subtitle. 

* * * * * * * 

48 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The next item on the agenda is the 

adoption of H.R. 1279, the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act.’’ The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, for a motion. The gentleman from 

North Carolina. 

Mr. COBLE. I move the—the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security reports favorably, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 

1279, the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 

2005.’’ This is an important piece of legislation that was marked up 

yesterday. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman move its favorable recommendation to the House? 

Mr. COBLE. I do indeed. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, H.R. 1279 will be 

considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The bill, H.R. 1279, follows:] 

49 

1

I

109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1279

To amend title 18, United States Code, to reduce violent gang crime and

protect law-abiding citizens and communities from violent criminals, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 14, 2005

Mr. FORBES (for himself, Mr. WOLF, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GOODE, Mrs. JO

ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, and

Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to reduce violent

gang crime and protect law-abiding citizens and communities from violent criminals, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and

5 Community Protection Act of 2005’’.


I1279.AAB
50 

2

•HR 1279 IH

1 TITLE I—CRIMINAL LAW RE2 FORMS AND ENHANCED PEN3 ALTIES TO DETER AND PUN4 ISH ILLEGAL STREET GANG

5 ACTIVITY AND RELATED

6 CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS

7 SEC. 101. REVISION AND EXTENSION OF PENALTIES RE8 LATED TO CRIMINAL STREET GANG ACTIV9 ITY.

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 26 of title 18, United

11 States Code, is amended to read as follows:

12 ‘‘CHAPTER 26—CRIMINAL STREET GANGS

‘‘521. Criminal street gang prosecutions.

13 ‘‘§ 521. Criminal street gang prosecutions

14 ‘‘(a) STREET GANG CRIME.—Whoever commits, or

15 conspires, threatens or attempts to commit, a gang crime

16 in order to further the activities of a criminal street gang,

17 or in order to gain entrance to or maintain or increase

18 position in such a gang, shall, in addition to being subject

19 to a fine under this title—

20 ‘‘(1) if the gang crime results in the death of

21 any person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;

22 ‘‘(2) if the gang crime is kidnapping, aggra23 vated sexual abuse, or maiming, be imprisoned for

24 life or any term of years not less than 30;


I1279.AAC
51 

3

•HR 1279 IH

1 ‘‘(3) if the gang crime is assault resulting in se2 rious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be

3 imprisoned for life or any term of years not less

4 than 20; and

5 ‘‘(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or

6 for any term of years not less than 10.

7 ‘‘(b) FORFEITURE.—

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Whoever violates this sec9 tion shall, in addition to any other penalty, forfeit to

10 the United States—

11 ‘‘(A) any property constituting, or derived

12 from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly

13 or indirectly, as a result of the violation; and

14 ‘‘(B) any property used, or intended to be

15 used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to

16 facilitate the commission of, the violation.

17 ‘‘(2) APPLICATION OF CONTROLLED SUB18 STANCES ACT.—Subsections (b), (c), (e), (f), (g),

19 (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), and (p) of section

20 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.

21 853) shall apply to a forfeiture under this section as

22 though it were a forfeiture under that section.

23 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—The following definitions apply

24 in this section:


I1279.AAD
52 

4

•HR 1279 IH

1 ‘‘(1) CRIMINAL STREET GANG.—The term

2 ‘criminal street gang’ means a formal or informal

3 group or association of 3 or more individuals, who

4 commit 2 or more gang crimes (one of which is a

5 crime of violence other than an offense punishable

6 under subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of section

7 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act), in 2 or

8 more separate criminal episodes, in relation to the

9 group or association, if any of the activities of the

10 criminal street gang affects interstate or foreign

11 commerce.

12 ‘‘(2) GANG CRIME.—The term ‘gang crime’

13 means conduct constituting any Federal or State

14 crime, punishable by imprisonment for more than

15 one year, in any of the following categories:

16 ‘‘(A) A crime of violence.

17 ‘‘(B) A crime involving obstruction of jus18 tice, tampering with or retaliating against a

19 witness, victim, or informant, or burglary.

20 ‘‘(C) A crime involving the manufacturing,

21 importing, distributing, possessing with intent

22 to distribute, or otherwise dealing in a con23 trolled substance or listed chemical (as those

24 terms are defined in section 102 of the Con25 trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).


I1279.AAE
53 

5

•HR 1279 IH

1 ‘‘(D) Any conduct punishable under sec2 tion 844 (relating to explosive materials), sub3 section (d), (g)(1) (where the underlying convic4 tion is a violent felony (as defined in section

5 924(e)(2)(B) of this title) or is a serious drug

6 offense (as defined in section 924(e)(2)(A)), (i),

7 (j), (k), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922

8 (relating to unlawful acts), or subsection (b),

9 (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of section 924

10 (relating to penalties), section 930 (relating to

11 possession of firearms and dangerous weapons

12 in Federal facilities), section 931 (relating to

13 purchase, ownership, or possesion of body

14 armor by violent felons), sections 1028 and

15 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in

16 connection with identification documents or ac17 cess devices), section 1952 (relating to inter18 state and foreign travel or transporation in aid

19 of racketeering enterprises), section 1956 (re20 lating to the laundering of monetary instru21 ments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in

22 monetary transactions in property derived from

23 specified unlawful activity), or sections 2312

24 through 2315 (relating to interstate transporVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

I1279.AAF
54 

6

•HR 1279 IH

1 tation of stolen motor vehicles or stolen prop2 erty).

3 ‘‘(E) Any conduct punishable under section

4 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring cer5 tain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or

6 assisting certain aliens to enter the United

7 States), or section 278 (relating to importation

8 of alien for immoral purpose) of the Immigra9 tion and Nationality Act.

10 ‘‘(3) AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE.—The term

11 ‘aggravated sexual abuse’ means an offense that, if

12 committed in the special maritime and territorial ju13 risdiction would be an offense under section 2241(a).

14 ‘‘(4) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of

15 the several States of the United States, the District

16 of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or

17 possession of the United States.’’.

18 (b) AMENDMENT RELATING TO PRIORITY OF FOR19 FEITURE OVER ORDERS FOR RESTITUTION.—Section

20 3663(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended

21 by striking ‘‘chapter 46 or chapter 96 of this title’’ and

22 inserting ‘‘section 521, under chapter 46 or 96,’’.


I1279.AAG
55 

7

•HR 1279 IH

1 SEC. 102. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR INTERSTATE AND

2 FOREIGN TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION IN

3 AID OF RACKETEERING.

4 (a) SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO OFFENSE.—Section

5 1952(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

6 (1) so that the heading for the section reads as

7 follows:

8 ‘‘§ 1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to

9 racketeering’’;

10 (2) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(a)’’;

11 (3) by striking ‘‘travels’’ and all that follows

12 through ‘‘intent to’’ and inserting ‘‘in or affecting

13 interstate or foreign commerce’’;

14 (4) by striking ‘‘ (1) distribute’’ and inserting

15 ‘‘(A) distributes’’;

16 (5) by striking ‘‘(2) commit’’ and inserting

17 ‘‘(B) commits’’;

18 (6) by striking ‘‘(3) otherwise promote, manage,

19 establish, carry on, or facilitate’’ and inserting ‘‘(C)

20 otherwise promotes, manages, establishes, carries on,

21 or facilitates’’; and

22 (7) by striking ‘‘and thereafter’’ and all that

23 follows through the end of the subsection and insert24 ing the following:

25 ‘‘or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as

26 provided in paragraph (2).


I1279.AAH
56 

8

•HR 1279 IH

1 ‘‘(2) The punishment for an offense under this

2 subsection is—

3 ‘‘(A) in the case of a violation of subpara4 graph (A) or (C) of paragraph (1), a fine under

5 this title and imprisonment for not less than 5

6 nor more than 20 years; and

7 ‘‘(B) in the case of a violation of subpara8 graph (B) of paragraph (1), a fine under this

9 title and imprisonment for not less than 10 nor

10 more than 30 years, but if death results the of11 fender shall be sentenced to death, or to impris12 onment for any term of years or for life.’’.

13 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The item relating to

14 section 1952 in the table of sections at the beginning of

15 chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code. is amended

16 to read as follows:

17 SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIME.

18 (a) CARJACKING.—Section 2119 of title 18, United

19 States Code, is amended—

20 (1) by striking ‘‘, with the intent to cause death

21 or serious bodily harm’’;

22 (2) by inserting ‘‘or conspires’’ after ‘‘at23 tempts’’;

24 (3) by striking ‘‘15’’ and inserting ‘‘20’’; and


I1279.AAI
57 

9

•HR 1279 IH

1 (4) by striking ‘‘or imprisoned not more than

2 25 years, or both’’ and inserting ‘‘and imprisoned

3 not less than 10 years nor more than 30 years’’.

4 (b) CLARIFICATION OF ILLEGAL GUN TRANSFERS TO

5 COMMIT DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME OR CRIMES OF VIO6 LENCE.—Section 924(g) of title 18, United States Code,

7 is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(g) Whoever knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing

9 or intending that the firearm will be used to commit, or

10 possessed in furtherance of, a crime of violence or drug

11 trafficking crime, shall be fined under this title and im12 prisoned not less than 5 years nor more than 20 years.’’.

13 (c) AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL SENTENCING PROVI14 SION RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON CRIMINAL ASSOCIA15 TION.—Section 3582(d) of title 18, United States Code,

16 is amended—

17 (1) by inserting ‘‘section 521 (criminal street

18 gang prosecutions), in’’ after ‘‘felony set forth in’’;

19 (2) by striking ‘‘specified person, other than his

20 attorney, upon’’ and inserting ‘‘specified person

21 upon’’; and

22 (3) by inserting ‘‘a criminal street gang or’’ be23 fore ‘‘an illegal enterprise’’.


I1279.AAJ
58 

10

•HR 1279 IH

1 (d) CONSPIRACY PENALTY.—Section 371 of title 18,

2 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘five’’ and

3 inserting ‘‘20’’.

4 SEC. 104. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR USE OF INTERSTATE

5 COMMERCE FACILITIES IN THE COMMISSION

6 OF MURDER-FOR-HIRE AND OTHER FELONY

7 CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.

8 Section 1958 of title 18, United States Code, is

9 amended—

10 (1) by striking the section heading and insert11 ing the following:

12 ‘‘§ 1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the

13 Commission of murder-for-hire and other

14 felony crimes of violence’’;

15 (2) by inserting ‘‘or other crime of violence,

16 punishable by imprisonment for more than one

17 year,’’ after ‘‘intent that a murder’’; and

18 (3) by striking ‘‘shall be fined’’ the first place

19 it appears and inserting the following:

20 ‘‘shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under this

21 title

22 ‘‘(1) if the crime of violence results in the death

23 of any person, be sentenced to death or life in pris24 on;


I1279.AAK
59 

11

•HR 1279 IH

1 ‘‘(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, ag2 gravated sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or

3 maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of years

4 not less than 30;

5 ‘‘(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting

6 in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365),

7 be imprisoned for life or any term of years not less

8 than 20; and

9 ‘‘(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or

10 for any term of years not less than 10.’’.

11 SEC. 105. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR VIOLENT CRIMES IN

12 AID OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.

13 Section 1959(a) of title 18, United States Code, is

14 amended to read as follows:

15 ‘‘(a) Whoever commits, or conspires, threatens, or at16 tempts to commit, a crime of violence in order to further

17 the activities of an enterprise engaged in racketeering ac18 tivity, or in order to gain entrance to or maintain or in19 crease position in, such an enterprise, shall, unless the

20 death penalty is otherwise imposed, in addition and con21 secutive to the punishment provided for any other violation

22 of this chapter and in addition to being subject to a fine

23 under this title—


I1279.AAL
60 

12

•HR 1279 IH

1 ‘‘(1) if the crime of violence results in the death

2 of any person, be sentenced to death or life in pris3 on;

4 ‘‘(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, ag5 gravated sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or

6 maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of years

7 not less than 30;

8 ‘‘(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting

9 in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365),

10 be imprisoned for life or for any term of years not

11 less than 20; and

12 ‘‘(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or

13 for any term of years not less than 10.’’.

14 SEC. 106. MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COM15 MITTED DURING AND IN RELATION TO A

16 DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part D of the Controlled Sub18 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended by adding

19 at the end the following:

20 ‘‘MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED

21 DURING AND IN RELATION TO A DRUG TRAFFICKING

22 CRIME

23 ‘‘SEC. 424. (a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever commits, or

24 conspires, or attempts to commit, a crime of violence dur25 ing and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, shall, un26 less the death penalty is otherwise imposed, in addition


I1279.AAM
61 

13

•HR 1279 IH

1 and consecutive to the punishment provided for the drug

2 trafficking crime and in addition to being subject to a fine

3 under this title—

4 ‘‘(1) if the crime of violence results in the death

5 of any person, be sentenced to death or life in pris6 on;

7 ‘‘(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, ag8 gravated sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or

9 maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of years

10 not less than 30;

11 ‘‘(3) if the crime of violence is assault assault

12 resulting in serious bodily injury (as defined in sec13 tion 1365), be imprisoned for life or any term of

14 years not less than 20; and

15 ‘‘(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or

16 for any term of years not less than 10.

17 ‘‘(b) VENUE.—A prosecution for a violation of this

18 section may be brought in—

19 ‘‘(1) the judicial district in which the murder or

20 other crime of violence occurred; or

21 ‘‘(2) any judicial district in which the drug traf22 ficking crime may be prosecuted.

23 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—


I1279.AAN
62 

14

•HR 1279 IH

1 ‘‘(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the mean2 ing given that term in section 16 of title 18, United

3 States Code; and

4 ‘‘(2) the term ‘drug trafficking crime’ has the

5 meaning given that term in section 924(c)(2) of title

6 18, United States Code.’’.

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents

8 for the Controlled Substances Act is amended by inserting

9 after the item relating to section 423, the following:

‘‘Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation

to a drug trafficking crime.’’.

10 SEC. 107. MULTIPLE INTERSTATE MURDER.

11 Part I of chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code,

12 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

13 ‘‘§ 1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the

14 Commission of multiple murder

15 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever travels in or causes an16 other (including the intended victim) to travel in interstate

17 or foreign commerce, or uses or causes another (including

18 the intended victim) to use the mail or any facility of inter19 state or foreign commerce, or who conspires or attempts

20 to do so, with intent that 2 or more intentional homicides

21 be committed in violation of the laws of any State or the

22 United States shall, in addition to being subject to a fine

23 under this title—


I1279.AAO
63 

15

•HR 1279 IH

1 ‘‘(1) if the offense results in the death of any

2 person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;

3 ‘‘(2) if the offense results is assault resulting in

4 serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be

5 imprisoned for life or any term of years not less

6 than 20; and

7 ‘‘(3) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or

8 for any term of years not less than 10.

9 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—The term ‘State’ means each of

10 the several States of the United States, the District of

11 Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession

12 of the United States.’’.

13 SEC. 108. ADDITIONAL RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.

14 Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is

15 amended—

16 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘, or

17 would have been so chargeable if the act or threat

18 had not been committed in Indian country (as de19 fined in section 1151) or in any other area of exclu20 sive Federal jurisdiction,’’ after ‘‘chargeable under

21 State law’’; and

22 (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘section

23 1123 (relating to interstate murder),’’ after ‘‘section

24 1084 (relating to the transmission of wagering infor25 mation),’’.


I1279.AAP
64 

16

•HR 1279 IH

1 SEC. 109. EXPANSION OF REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION

2 AGAINST RELEASE OF PERSONS CHARGED

3 WITH FIREARMS OFFENSES.

4 Section 3142 of title 18, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) in subsection (e), in the matter following

7 paragraph (3)—

8 (A) by inserting ‘‘an offense under section

9 922(g)(1) where the underlying conviction is a

10 drug trafficking crime (as defined in section

11 924(c)) or a crime of violence,’’ after ‘‘that the

12 person committed’’; and

13 (B) by inserting ‘‘or’’ before ‘‘the Mari14 time’’; and

15 (2) in subsection (g), by amending paragraph

16 (1) to read as follows:

17 ‘‘(1) the nature and circumstances of the of18 fense charged, including whether the offense is a

19 crime of violence, or involves a controlled substance,

20 firearm, explosive, or destructive devise;’’.

21 SEC. 110. VENUE IN CAPITAL CASES.

22 Section 3235 of title 18, United States Code, is

23 amended to read as follows:

24 ‘‘§ 3235. Venue in capital cases

25 ‘‘(a) The trial for any offense punishable by death

26 shall be held in the district where the offense was comVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

I1279.AAQ
65 

17

•HR 1279 IH

1 mitted or in any district in which the offense began, con2 tinued, or was completed.

3 ‘‘(b) If the offense, or related conduct, under sub4 section (a) involves activities which affect interstate or for5 eign commerce, or the importation of an object or person

6 into the United States, such offense may be prosecuted

7 in any district in which those activities occurred.’’.

8 SEC. 111. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIME.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 214 of title 18, United

10 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol11 lowing:

12 ‘‘§ 3296. Violent crime offenses

13 ‘‘No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished

14 for any noncapital felony, crime of violence, including any

15 racketeering activity or gang crime which involves any

16 crime of violence, unless the indictment is found or the

17 information is instituted not later than 15 years after the

18 date on which the alleged violation occurred or the con19 tinuing offense was completed.’’.

20 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

21 at the beginning of chapter 214 of title 18, United States

22 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘3296. Violent crime offenses.’’.


I1279.AAR
66 

18

•HR 1279 IH

1 SEC. 112. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF CRIME OF VIO2 LENCE.

3 Section 16(b) of title 18, United States Code, is

4 amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(b) any other offense that is an offense punishable

6 by imprisonment for more than one year and that, by its

7 nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force may

8 be used against the person or property of another, or is

9 an offense punishable under subparagraphs (A), (B), or

10 (C) of section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances

11 Act.’’.

12 SEC. 113. CLARIFICATION TO HEARSAY EXCEPTION FOR

13 FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING.

14 Rule 804(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is

15 amended to read as follows:

16 ‘‘(6) FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING.—A state17 ment offered against a party who has engaged or ac18 quiesced in wrongdoing, or who could reasonably

19 foresee such wrongdoing would take place, if the

20 wrongdoing was intended to, and did, procure the

21 unavailability of the declarant as a witness.’’.

22 SEC. 114. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CRIMINAL USE OF

23 FIREARMS IN CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AND

24 DRUG TRAFFICKING.

25 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 924(c)(1)(A) of title 18,

26 United States Code, is amended—


I1279.AAS
67 

19

•HR 1279 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1)(A)—

2 (A) by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting ‘‘or

3 conspires to commit any of the above acts,

4 shall, for each instance in which the firearm is

5 used, carried, or possessed’’;

6 (B) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘5 years’’ and

7 inserting ‘‘7 years’’; and

8 (C) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii) and in9 serting the following:

10 ‘‘(ii) if the firearm is discharged, be

11 sentenced to a term of imprisonment of

12 not less than 15 years; and

13 ‘‘(iii) if the firearm is used to wound,

14 injure, or maim another person, be sen15 tenced to a term of imprisonment of not

16 less than 20 years.’’; and

17 (2) by striking paragraph (4).

18 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 924 of title

19 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection

20 (o).

21 SEC. 115. TRANSFER OF JUVENILES.

22 The 4th undesignated paragraph of section 5032 of

23 title 18, United States Code, is amended—

24 (1) by striking ‘‘A juvenile’’ where it appears at

25 the beginning of the paragraph and inserting ‘‘ExVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

I1279.AAT
68 

20

•HR 1279 IH

1 cept as otherwise provided in this chapter, a juve2 nile’’ ;

3 (2) by striking ‘‘as an adult, except that, with’’

4 and inserting ‘‘as an adult. With’’; and

5 (3) by striking ‘‘However, a juvenile’’ and all

6 that follows through ‘‘criminal prosecution.’’ at the

7 end of the paragraph and inserting ‘‘The Attorney

8 General may prosecute as an adult a juvenile who is

9 alleged to have committed an act after that juve10 nile’s 16th birthday which if committed by an adult

11 would be a crime of violence that is a felony, an of12 fense described in subsection (d), (i), (j), (k), (o),

13 (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating to unlaw14 ful acts), or subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m),

15 or (n) of section 924 (relating to penalties), section

16 930 (relating to possession of firearms and dan17 gerous weapons in Federal facilities), or section 931

18 (relating to purchase, ownership, or possesion of

19 body armor by violent felons). The decision whether

20 or not to prosecute a juvenile as an adult under the

21 immediately preceding sentence is not subject to ju22 dicial review in any court. In a prosecution under

23 that sentence, the juvenile may be prosecuted and

24 convicted as an adult for any other offense which is

25 properly joined under the Federal Rules of Criminal


I1279.AAU
69 

21

•HR 1279 IH

1 Procedure, and may also be convicted as an adult of

2 any lesser included offense.’’.

3 TITLE II—INCREASED FEDERAL

4 RESOURCES TO DETER AND

5 PREVENT AT-RISK YOUTH

6 FROM JOINING ILLEGAL

7 STREET GANGS

8 SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF AND ASSISTANCE FOR ‘‘HIGH IN9 TENSITY’’ INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY

10 AREAS.

11 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section the following defi12 nitions shall apply:

13 (1) GOVERNOR.—The term ‘‘Governor’’ means

14 a Governor of a State or the Mayor of the District

15 of Columbia.

16 (2) HIGH INTENSITY INTERSTATE GANG ACTIV17 ITY AREA.—The term ‘‘high intensity interstate

18 gang activity area’’ means an area within a State

19 that is designated as a high intensity interstate gang

20 activity area under subsection (b)(1).

21 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means a State

22 of the United States, the District of Columbia, and

23 any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the

24 United States.


I1279.AAV
70 

22

•HR 1279 IH

1 (b) HIGH INTENSITY INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY

2 AREAS.—

3 (1) DESIGNATION.—The Attorney General,

4 after consultation with the Governors of appropriate

5 States, may designate as high intensity interstate

6 gang activity areas, specific areas that are located

7 within 1 or more States.

8 (2) ASSISTANCE.—In order to provide Federal

9 assistance to high intensity interstate gang activity

10 areas, the Attorney General shall—

11 (A) establish criminal street gang enforce12 ment teams, consisting of Federal, State, and

13 local law enforcement authorities, for the co14 ordinated investigation, disruption, apprehen15 sion, and prosecution of criminal street gangs

16 and offenders in each high intensity interstate

17 gang activity area;

18 (B) direct the reassignment or detailing

19 from any Federal department or agency (sub20 ject to the approval of the head of that depart21 ment or agency, in the case of a department or

22 agency other than the Department of Justice)

23 of personnel to each criminal street gang en24 forcement team;


I1279.AAW
71 

23

•HR 1279 IH

1 (C) provide all necessary funding for the

2 operation of the criminal street gang enforce3 ment team in each high intensity interstate

4 gang activity area; and

5 (D) provide all necessary funding for na6 tional and regional meetings of criminal street

7 gang enforcement teams, and all other related

8 organizations, as needed, to ensure effective op9 eration of such teams through the sharing of

10 intelligence, best practices and for any other re11 lated purpose.

12 (3) COMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL STREET GANG

13 ENFORCEMENT TEAM.—The team established pursu14 ant to paragraph (2)(A) shall consist of agents and

15 officers, where feasible, from—

16 (A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

17 (B) the Drug Enforcement Administration;

18 (C) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fire19 arms, and Explosives;

20 (D) the United States Marshals Service;

21 (E) the Directorate of Border and Trans22 portation Security of the Department of Home23 land Security;

24 (F) the Department of Housing and Urban

25 Development;


I1279.AAX
72 

24

•HR 1279 IH

1 (G) State and local law enforcement; and

2 (H) Federal, State, and local prosecutors.

3 (4) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION.—In consid4 ering an area for designation as a high intensity

5 interstate gang activity area under this section, the

6 Attorney General shall consider—

7 (A) the current and predicted levels of

8 gang crime activity in the area;

9 (B) the extent to which violent crime in

10 the area appears to be related to criminal street

11 gang activity, such as drug trafficking, murder,

12 robbery, assaults, carjacking, arson, kidnap13 ping, extortion, and other criminal activity;

14 (C) the extent to which State and local law

15 enforcement agencies have committed resources

16 to—

17 (i) respond to the gang crime prob18 lem; and

19 (ii) participate in a gang enforcement

20 team;

21 (D) the extent to which a significant in22 crease in the allocation of Federal resources

23 would enhance local response to the gang crime

24 activities in the area; and


I1279.AAY
73 

25

•HR 1279 IH

1 (E) any other criteria that the Attorney

2 General considers to be appropriate.

3 (c) ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS.—The

4 Attorney General is authorized to hire 94 additional As5 sistant United States attorneys to carry out the provisions

6 of this section. Each attorney hired under this subsection

7 shall be assigned to a high intensity interstate gang activ8 ity area.

9 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

10 are authorized to be appropriated—

11 (1) $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years

12 2006 through 2010 to carry out subsection (b); and

13 (2) $7,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006

14 through 2010 to carry out subsection (c).

15 SEC. 202. GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL PROSECUTORS TO

16 COMBAT VIOLENT CRIME AND TO PROTECT

17 WITNESSES AND VICTIMS OF CRIMES.

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 31702 of the Violent

19 Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42

20 U.S.C. 13862) is amended —

21 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

22 end;

23 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at

24 the end and inserting a semicolon; and

25 (3) by adding at the end the following:


I1279.AAZ
74 

26

•HR 1279 IH

1 ‘‘(5) to hire additional prosecutors to—

2 ‘‘(A) allow more cases to be prosecuted;

3 and

4 ‘‘(B) reduce backlogs;

5 ‘‘(6) to fund technology, equipment, and train6 ing for prosecutors and law enforcement in order to

7 increase accurate identification of gang members

8 and violent offenders, and to maintain databases

9 with such information to facilitate coordination

10 among law enforcement and prosecutors; and

11 ‘‘(7) to fund technology, equipment, and train12 ing for prosecutors to increase the accurate identi13 fication and successful prosecution of young violent

14 offenders.’’.

15 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

16 31707 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

17 Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as

18 follows:

19 ‘‘SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

20 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated

21 $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through

22 2010 to carry out this subtitle.’’.

Æ


I1279.ABA
75 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from North Carolina to strike the last word. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the Chairman. 

On April the 5th, Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill, which was introduced by Representative Forbes, 

Representative Wolf, and other members of the Virginia delegation. 

The hearing examined the growing problem of gang violence in our 

country and the need to address the problem. 

The problem of gang violence in America, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, is not a new one, nor is it a problem that is limited to 

major urban areas, as was once the general belief. Gangs have now 

invaded smaller communities, even penetrating into rural areas of 

our country. 

Mr. Chairman, I was not able to attend the hearing, which was 

chaired by Representative Forbes, and this is his bill, and with the 

Chair’s permission I would like for Mr. Forbes to handle the bill. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yield the balance of his time to the gentleman from Virginia? 

Mr. COBLE. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 

Virginia. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia? 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a substitute that we’re offering, if the 

Chair would like to recognize that at this particular point in time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair wishes to have two opening statements on each side, and then the Chair will recognize the 

gentleman from Virginia for purposes of a substitute after Mr. 

Scott is done with his opening statement. 

Mr. FORBES. Then, Mr. Chairman, I would simply echo what the 

distinguished Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee has said in 

that the crime problem in the United States has grown dramatically over the last several years. It is totally different than the old 

West Side Story that we used to think about where we had two 

criminal gangs fighting with each other. Today there are approximately 750,000 to 850,000 criminal gang members in the United 

States. To put that in perspective, if it was an army, it would be 

the sixth largest army in the world, and it is about a number equal 

to the active-duty members we have in the army and navy combined. 

In addition, they have changed enormously. Many of these people 

are equipped to do guerrilla warfare. They have boards of directors. 

They are operating across the country. You will see from the headlines that we have that they’re cutting off people’s arms, they’re 

cutting out the larynxes of individuals, they’re murdering people, 

they’re raping people, and they’re spreading all across the country. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we are recognizing is that 

the only way we’re going to be able to deal with this problem is 

to reach out with a bill like this which brings the resources of the 

Federal Government, the State government, and the local government into the same organized activity that we have when we broke 

up organized crime in the United States. We think the benefit of 

this bill is that it reaches at the heart of the criminal network and 

rips that criminal gang network out so it’s not continuing to recruit 

individuals and to make this gang problem more severe. 

76 

Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the debate on this bill 

and the questions that my friends from the other side I’m sure will 

have in support of this great piece of legislation. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, sorry to see this markup of H.R. 1279, the socalled ‘‘Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005.’’ This bill is in no way like the last bill we considered to address 

crime and violence by youth. That bill was cosponsored by all of the 

Members of the Subcommittee on Crime and was based on the 

combined wisdom and expertise of law enforcement, juvenile court 

judges and administrators, researchers, criminologists, and juvenile 

justice advocates along the entire political spectrum. That bill was 

full of collaborative efforts by local law enforcement officials aimed 

at addressing the problem caused by young people early when they 

first entered the system with sufficient sanctions and/or services to 

keep them on the straight and narrow; and if they do come back, 

to hit them with graduated sanctions and services to the extent required to address the problem. 

Unfortunately, after all this agreement, we failed the most important aspect of our agreement, to provide an adequate level of 

funding for the bill. While this Committee initially authorized $500 

million a year, the House settled on $350 million for the first year, 

but the most money we’ve been able to get appropriated for the bill was $55 million a year, about one-tenth of the amount we thought 

originally necessary. 

Now that we’re seeing youth gang crime and violence rise, we’re 

willing to abandon what we know and agreed upon but never funded to spend billions of dollars to prosecute and look up youth up 

under long mandatory—to lock up youth under long mandatory 

minimum sentences, which allowed no consideration for the relative roles of the crimes or the background of the offender. 

This bill is chock full of new mandatory minimum sentences 

ranging from a mandatory minimum of 10 years to mandatory life 

or death and other provisions which have been proven to be counterproductive in the fight against crime. 

For some time now, we have known that mandatory minimum 

sentences disrupt orderly proportionality in sentencing, discriminate against minorities, waste money, compared to sentencing 

schemes where the court can actually look at the seriousness of the 

crime, the offender’s role in the crime, and the offender’s background. 

The Judicial Conference of the United States, which sees the impact of mandatory minimums on an individual—on individual cases 

as well as on the criminal justice system as a whole has told us 

time and time again that mandatory sentences create more harm 

than good from any kind of rational evaluation. In its recent letter, 

the Conference told us that mandatory minimum sentences create 

the opposite of their intended effect. Far from fostering certainty 

in punishment mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparities. Mandatory minimums treat dissimilar offenders in a similar manner, although those offenders can be quite different in respect to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger 

to society. And they require the sentencing court to impose the 

77 

same sentence on offenders when sound policy and common sense 

call for reasonable differences in punishment. 

Both the Federal Judicial Center in its report entitled ‘‘The General Effects of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A Longitudinal 

Study,’’ and the Sentencing Commission in its study, ‘‘Mandatory 

Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System,’’ found 

that minorities were substantially more likely than whites under 

comparable circumstances to receive the mandatory minimum sentences. And the RAND Corporation recent report showed that mandatory minimum sentences are far less effective than either regular 

sentences or drug treatment in reducing drug-related crime and, 

thus, far more costlier than either. 

Just how costly this bill will be is yet to be seen, but the Sentencing Commission has estimated a need for an additional 23,600 

prison beds over the next 10 years. That would be about $2 billion 

in addition to the annual upkeep of about $750 million based on 

$30,000 per inmate per year. And that’s over and above what’s already scheduled to be spent for prison construction and upkeep. 

For proven evidence-based juvenile crime prevention and intervention services, we’re spending about half, less than $400 million 

annually, of the annual prison upkeep; this bill will cost in addition 

to what we’re already paying. The worst problem with the bill is 

that it provides for more juveniles tried as adults. For years now, 

every study of juveniles tried as adults has shown that such juveniles commit more crimes, and more violent crimes in particular, 

when they’re released. It is easy to understand when you consider 

the juveniles who go to prison will have as their role models hardcore murderers, rapists, and robbers, whereas in juvenile detention 

they’re required to receive education and training. 

Mr. Chairman, an additional minute? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. SCOTT. Counseling and drug treatment and other assistance. 

On March 1st of this year, coincidentally the same day H.R. 1279 

was introduced, the Coalition of Juvenile Justice released its study, 

‘‘Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying and Sentencing Youth 

in Adult Criminal Court,’’ showed even more definitively that trying juveniles as adults increases rather than decreases the prospects that they will reoffend when released, and the more serious— and with the more serious offenses as compared to youths tried in 

juvenile court. Already without this bill, juveniles who commit serious violent offenses are already tried as adults. The difference with 

this bill is that the judge can look at them individually in most 

cases and determine which ones will not require such treatment 

and put them in the juvenile justice system where they will be less 

likely to commit an additional crime. 

This bill eliminates individual considerations in favor of sound 

bites, and I hope we will defeat the bill and get back to doing what 

we know works in dealing with juvenile crime. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Without objection, all Members may include opening statements 

in the record at this point. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia for purposes 

of offering a substitute amendment. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

78 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman from Virginia 

have an amendment at the desk? 

Mr. FORBES. Yes, sir, I do, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

1279, offered by Mr. Forbes of Virginia—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment 

in the nature of a substitute is considered as read. 

[The amendment in the nature of a substitute follows:] 

79 H.L.C.

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

TO H.R. 1279

OFFERED BY MR. FORBES OF VIRGINIA

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and

3 Community Protection Act of 2005’’.

4 TITLE I—CRIMINAL LAW RE5 FORMS AND ENHANCED PEN6 ALTIES TO DETER AND PUN7 ISH ILLEGAL STREET GANG

8 ACTIVITY AND RELATED

9 CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS

10 SEC. 101. REVISION AND EXTENSION OF PENALTIES RE11 LATED TO CRIMINAL STREET GANG ACTIV12 ITY.

13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 26 of title 18, United

14 States Code, is amended to read as follows:

15 ‘‘CHAPTER 26—CRIMINAL STREET GANGS

‘‘521. Criminal street gang prosecutions.


1279A.AAB
80 

2

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘§ 521. Criminal street gang prosecutions

2 ‘‘(a) STREET GANG CRIME.—Whoever commits, or

3 conspires, threatens or attempts to commit, a gang crime

4 for the purpose of furthering the activities of a criminal

5 street gang, or gaining entrance to or maintaining or in6 creasing position in such a gang, shall, in addition to being

7 subject to a fine under this title—

8 ‘‘(1) if the gang crime results in the death of

9 any person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;

10 ‘‘(2) if the gang crime is kidnapping, aggra11 vated sexual abuse, or maiming, be imprisoned for

12 life or any term of years not less than 30;

13 ‘‘(3) if the gang crime is assault resulting in se14 rious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be

15 imprisoned for life or any term of years not less

16 than 20; and

17 ‘‘(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or

18 for any term of years not less than 10.

19 ‘‘(b) FORFEITURE.—

20 ‘‘(1) CRIMINAL.—

21 ‘‘(A) The court, in imposing sentence on

22 any person convicted of a violation of this sec23 tion, shall order, in addition to any other sen24 tence imposed and irrespective of any provision

25 of State law, that such person shall forfeit to

26 the United States such person’s interest in—


1279A.AAC
81 

3

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(i) any property used, or intended to

2 be used, in any manner or part, to commit,

3 or to facilitate the commission of, the vio4 lation; and

5 ‘‘(ii) any property constituting, or de6 rived from, any proceeds the person ob7 tained, directly or indirectly, as a result of

8 the violation.

9 ‘‘(B) APPLICATION OF CONTROLLED SUB10 STANCES ACT.—Subsections (b), (c), (e), (f),

11 (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), and (p)

12 of section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act

13 (21 U.S.C. 853) shall apply to a forfeiture

14 under this section as though it were a forfeiture

15 under that section.

16 ‘‘(2) CIVIL.—

17 ‘‘(A) The following shall be subject to for18 feiture to the United States and no property

19 right shall exist in them:

20 ‘‘(i) any property used, or intended to

21 be used, in any manner or part, to commit,

22 or to facilitate the commission of a viola23 tion of this section; and

24 ‘‘(ii) any property constituting, or de25 rived from, any proceeds the person obVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

1279A.AAD
82 

4

H.L.C.

1 tained, directly or indirectly, as a result of

2 the violation.

3 ‘‘(B) The provisions of chapter 46 relating

4 to civil forfeitures shall extend to any seizure or

5 civil forfeiture under this subsection

6 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—The following definitions apply

7 in this section:

8 ‘‘(1) CRIMINAL STREET GANG.—The term

9 ‘criminal street gang’ means a formal or informal

10 group or association of 3 or more individuals, who

11 commit 2 or more gang crimes (one of which is a

12 crime of violence other than an offense punishable

13 under subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of section

14 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act), in 2 or

15 more separate criminal episodes, in relation to the

16 group or association, if any of the activities of the

17 criminal street gang affects interstate or foreign

18 commerce.

19 ‘‘(2) GANG CRIME.—The term ‘gang crime’

20 means conduct constituting any Federal or State

21 crime, punishable by imprisonment for more than

22 one year, in any of the following categories:

23 ‘‘(A) A crime of violence.


1279A.AAE
83 

5

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(B) A crime involving obstruction of jus2 tice, tampering with or retaliating against a

3 witness, victim, or informant, or burglary.

4 ‘‘(C) A crime involving the manufacturing,

5 importing, distributing, possessing with intent

6 to distribute, or otherwise dealing in a con7 trolled substance or listed chemical (as those

8 terms are defined in section 102 of the Con9 trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).

10 ‘‘(D) Any conduct punishable under sec11 tion 844 (relating to explosive materials), sub12 section (a)(1), (d), (g)(1) (where the underlying

13 conviction is a violent felony (as defined in sec14 tion 924(e)(2)(B) of this title) or is a serious

15 drug offense (as defined in section

16 924(e)(2)(A))), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5),

17 (g)(8), (g)(9), (i), (j), (k), (n), (o), (p), (q), (u),

18 or (x) of section 922 (relating to unlawful acts),

19 or subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or

20 (n) of section 924 (relating to penalties), sec21 tion 930 (relating to possession of firearms and

22 dangerous weapons in Federal facilities), sec23 tion 931 (relating to purchase, ownership, or

24 possession of body armor by violent felons), sec25 tions 1028 and 1029 (relating to fraud and reVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

1279A.AAF
84 

6

H.L.C.

1 lated activity in connection with identification

2 documents or access devices), section 1952 (re3 lating to interstate and foreign travel or trans4 portation in aid of racketeering enterprises),

5 section 1956 (relating to the laundering of

6 monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating

7 to engaging in monetary transactions in prop8 erty derived from specified unlawful activity), or

9 sections 2312 through 2315 (relating to inter10 state transportation of stolen motor vehicles or

11 stolen property).

12 ‘‘(E) Any conduct punishable under section

13 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring cer14 tain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or

15 assisting certain aliens to enter the United

16 States), or section 278 (relating to importation

17 of alien for immoral purpose) of the Immigra18 tion and Nationality Act.

19 ‘‘(3) AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE.—The term

20 ‘aggravated sexual abuse’ means an offense that, if

21 committed in the special maritime and territorial ju22 risdiction would be an offense under section 2241(a).

23 ‘‘(4) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of

24 the several States of the United States, the District


1279A.AAG
85 

7

H.L.C.

1 of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or

2 possession of the United States.’’.

3 (b) AMENDMENT RELATING TO PRIORITY OF FOR4 FEITURE OVER ORDERS FOR RESTITUTION.—Section

5 3663(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended

6 by striking ‘‘chapter 46 or chapter 96 of this title’’ and

7 inserting ‘‘section 521, under chapter 46 or 96,’’.

8 (c) MONEY LAUNDERING.—Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of

9 title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘,

10 section 521 (relating to criminal street gang prosecu11 tions)’’ before ‘‘, section 541’’.

12 SEC. 102. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR INTERSTATE AND

13 FOREIGN TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION IN

14 AID OF RACKETEERING.

15 (a) SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO OFFENSE.—Section

16 1952(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

17 (1) so that the heading for the section reads as

18 follows:

19 ‘‘§ 1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to

20 racketeering’’;

21 (2) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(a)’’;

22 (3) by striking ‘‘travels’’ and all that follows

23 through ‘‘intent to’’ and inserting ‘‘in or affecting

24 interstate or foreign commerce’’;


1279A.AAH
86 

8

H.L.C.

1 (4) by striking ‘‘ (1) distribute’’ and inserting

2 ‘‘(A) distributes’’;

3 (5) by striking ‘‘(2) commit’’ and inserting

4 ‘‘(B) commits’’;

5 (6) by striking ‘‘(3) otherwise promote, manage,

6 establish, carry on, or facilitate’’ and inserting ‘‘(C)

7 otherwise promotes, manages, establishes, carries on,

8 or facilitates’’; and

9 (7) by striking ‘‘and thereafter’’ and all that

10 follows through the end of the subsection and insert11 ing the following:

12 ‘‘or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as

13 provided in paragraph (2).

14 ‘‘(2) The punishment for an offense under this

15 subsection is—

16 ‘‘(A) in the case of a violation of subpara17 graph (A) or (C) of paragraph (1), a fine under

18 this title and imprisonment for not less than 5

19 nor more than 20 years; and

20 ‘‘(B) in the case of a violation of subpara21 graph (B) of paragraph (1), a fine under this

22 title and imprisonment for not less than 10 nor

23 more than 30 years, but if death results the of24 fender shall be sentenced to death, or to impris25 onment for any term of years or for life.’’.


1279A.AAI
87 

9

H.L.C.

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The item relating to

2 section 1952 in the table of sections at the beginning of

3 chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code. is amended

4 to read as follows:

5 SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIME.

6 (a) CARJACKING.—Section 2119 of title 18, United

7 States Code, is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘, with the intent to cause death

9 or serious bodily harm’’;

10 (2) by inserting ‘‘or conspires’’ after ‘‘at11 tempts’’;

12 (3) by striking ‘‘15’’ and inserting ‘‘20’’; and

13 (4) by striking ‘‘or imprisoned not more than

14 25 years, or both’’ and inserting ‘‘and imprisoned

15 not less than 10 years nor more than 30 years’’.

16 (b) CLARIFICATION OF ILLEGAL GUN TRANSFERS TO

17 COMMIT DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME OR CRIMES OF VIO18 LENCE.—Section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code,

19 is amended to read as follows:

20 ‘‘(h) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign

21 commerce, knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing or in22 tending that the firearm will be used to commit, or pos23 sessed in furtherance of, a crime of violence or drug traf24 ficking crime, shall be fined under this title and impris25 oned not less than 5 years nor more than 20 years.’’.


1279A.AAJ
88 

10

H.L.C.

1 (c) AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL SENTENCING PROVI2 SION RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON CRIMINAL ASSOCIA3 TION.—Section 3582(d) of title 18, United States Code,

4 is amended—

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘section 521 (criminal street

6 gang prosecutions), in’’ after ‘‘felony set forth in’’;

7 (2) by striking ‘‘specified person, other than his

8 attorney, upon’’ and inserting ‘‘specified person

9 upon’’; and

10 (3) by inserting ‘‘a criminal street gang or’’ be11 fore ‘‘an illegal enterprise’’.

12 (d) CONSPIRACY PENALTY.—Section 371 of title 18,

13 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘five’’ and

14 inserting ‘‘20’’.

15 SEC. 104. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR USE OF INTERSTATE

16 COMMERCE FACILITIES IN THE COMMISSION

17 OF MURDER-FOR-HIRE AND OTHER FELONY

18 CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.

19 Section 1958 of title 18, United States Code, is

20 amended—

21 (1) by striking the section heading and insert22 ing the following:


1279A.AAK
89 

11

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘§ 1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the

2 Commission of murder-for-hire and other

3 felony crimes of violence’’;

4 (2) by inserting ‘‘or other crime of violence,

5 punishable by imprisonment for more than one

6 year,’’ after ‘‘intent that a murder’’; and

7 (3) by striking ‘‘shall be fined’’ the first place

8 it appears and inserting the following:

9 ‘‘shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under this

10 title

11 ‘‘(1) if the crime of violence or conspiracy re12 sults in the death of any person, be sentenced to

13 death or life in prison;

14 ‘‘(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, ag15 gravated sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or

16 maiming, or a conspiracy to commit such a crime of

17 violence, be imprisoned for life or any term of years

18 not less than 30;

19 ‘‘(3) if the crime of violence is an assault, or a

20 conspiracy to assault, that results in serious bodily

21 injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned

22 for life or any term of years not less than 20; and

23 ‘‘(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or

24 for any term of years not less than 10.’’.


1279A.AAL
90 

12

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 105. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR VIOLENT CRIMES IN

2 AID OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.

3 (a) OFFENSE.—Section 1959(a) of title 18, United

4 States Code, is amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(a) Whoever commits, or conspires, threatens, or at6 tempts to commit, a crime of violence for the purpose of

7 furthering the activities of an enterprise engaged in rack8 eteering activity, or for the purpose of gaining entrance

9 to or maintaining or increasing position in, such an enter10 prise, shall, unless the death penalty is otherwise imposed,

11 in addition and consecutive to the punishment provided

12 for any other violation of this chapter and in addition to

13 being subject to a fine under this title—

14 ‘‘(1) if the crime of violence results in the death

15 of any person, be sentenced to death or life in pris16 on;

17 ‘‘(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, ag18 gravated sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or

19 maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of years

20 not less than 30;

21 ‘‘(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting

22 in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365),

23 be imprisoned for life or for any term of years not

24 less than 20; and

25 ‘‘(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or

26 for any term of years not less than 10.’’.


1279A.AAM
91 

13

H.L.C.

1 (b) VENUE.—Section 1959 of title 18, United States

2 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: —

3 ‘‘(c) A prosecution for a violation of this section may

4 be brought in—

5 ‘‘(1) the judicial district in which the crime of

6 violence occurred; or

7 ‘‘(2) any judicial district in which racketeering

8 activity of the enterprise occurred.’’.

9 SEC. 106. MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COM10 MITTED DURING AND IN RELATION TO A

11 DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part D of the Controlled Sub13 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended by adding

14 at the end the following:

15 ‘‘MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED

16 DURING AND IN RELATION TO A DRUG TRAFFICKING

17 CRIME

18 ‘‘SEC. 424. (a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever commits, or

19 conspires, or attempts to commit, a crime of violence dur20 ing and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, shall, un21 less the death penalty is otherwise imposed, in addition

22 and consecutive to the punishment provided for the drug

23 trafficking crime and in addition to being subject to a fine

24 under this title—


1279A.AAN
92 

14

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(1) if the crime of violence results in the death

2 of any person, be sentenced to death or life in pris3 on;

4 ‘‘(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, ag5 gravated sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or

6 maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of years

7 not less than 30;

8 ‘‘(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting

9 in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365),

10 be imprisoned for life or any term of years not less

11 than 20; and

12 ‘‘(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or

13 for any term of years not less than 10.

14 ‘‘(b) VENUE.—A prosecution for a violation of this

15 section may be brought in—

16 ‘‘(1) the judicial district in which the murder or

17 other crime of violence occurred; or

18 ‘‘(2) any judicial district in which the drug traf19 ficking crime may be prosecuted.

20 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—

21 ‘‘(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the mean22 ing given that term in section 16 of title 18, United

23 States Code; and


1279A.AAO
93 

15

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(2) the term ‘drug trafficking crime’ has the

2 meaning given that term in section 924(c)(2) of title

3 18, United States Code.’’.

4 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents

5 for the Controlled Substances Act is amended by inserting

6 after the item relating to section 423, the following:

‘‘Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation

to a drug trafficking crime.’’.

7 SEC. 107. MULTIPLE INTERSTATE MURDER.

8 Part I of chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code,

9 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

10 ‘‘§ 1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the

11 Commission of multiple murder

12 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever travels in or causes an13 other (including the intended victim) to travel in interstate

14 or foreign commerce, or uses or causes another (including

15 the intended victim) to use the mail or any facility of inter16 state or foreign commerce, or who conspires or attempts

17 to do so, with intent that 2 or more intentional homicides

18 be committed in violation of the laws of any State or the

19 United States shall, in addition to being subject to a fine

20 under this title—

21 ‘‘(1) if the offense results in the death of any

22 person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;

23 ‘‘(2) if the offense results is assault resulting in

24 serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be


1279A.AAP
94 

16

H.L.C.

1 imprisoned for life or any term of years not less

2 than 20; and

3 ‘‘(3) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or

4 for any term of years not less than 10.

5 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—The term ‘State’ means each of

6 the several States of the United States, the District of

7 Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession

8 of the United States.’’.

9 SEC. 108. ADDITIONAL RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.

10 Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is

11 amended—

12 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘, or

13 would have been so chargeable if the act or threat

14 had not been committed in Indian country (as de15 fined in section 1151) or in any other area of exclu16 sive Federal jurisdiction,’’ after ‘‘chargeable under

17 State law’’; and

18 (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘section

19 1123 (relating to interstate murder),’’ after ‘‘section

20 1084 (relating to the transmission of wagering infor21 mation),’’.


1279A.AAQ
95 

17

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 109. EXPANSION OF REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION

2 AGAINST RELEASE OF PERSONS CHARGED

3 WITH FIREARMS OFFENSES.

4 Section 3142 of title 18, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) in subsection (e), in the matter following

7 paragraph (3)—

8 (A) by inserting ‘‘an offense under sub9 section (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction

10 is a drug trafficking crime (as defined in sec11 tion 924(c))), (g)(2), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), or

12 (g)(9) of section 922, or a crime of violence,’’

13 after ‘‘that the person committed’’; and

14 (B) by inserting ‘‘or’’ before ‘‘the Mari15 time’’; and

16 (2) in subsection (g), by amending paragraph

17 (1) to read as follows:

18 ‘‘(1) the nature and circumstances of the of19 fense charged, including whether the offense is a

20 crime of violence, or involves a controlled substance,

21 firearm, explosive, or destructive devise;’’.

22 SEC. 110. VENUE IN CAPITAL CASES.

23 Section 3235 of title 18, United States Code, is

24 amended to read as follows:


1279A.AAR
96 

18

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘§ 3235. Venue in capital cases

2 ‘‘(a) The trial for any offense punishable by death

3 shall be held in the district where the offense was com4 mitted or in any district in which the offense began, con5 tinued, or was completed.

6 ‘‘(b) If the offense, or related conduct, under sub7 section (a) involves activities which affect interstate or for8 eign commerce, or the importation of an object or person

9 into the United States, such offense may be prosecuted

10 in any district in which those activities occurred.’’.

11 SEC. 111. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIME.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 214 of title 18, United

13 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol14 lowing:

15 ‘‘§ 3296. Violent crime offenses

16 ‘‘No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished

17 for any noncapital felony, crime of violence, including any

18 racketeering activity or gang crime which involves any

19 crime of violence, unless the indictment is found or the

20 information is instituted not later than 15 years after the

21 date on which the alleged violation occurred or the con22 tinuing offense was completed.’’.

23 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

24 at the beginning of chapter 214 of title 18, United States

25 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘3296. Violent crime offenses.’’.


1279A.AAS
97 

19

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 112. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF CRIME OF VIO2 LENCE.

3 Section 16(b) of title 18, United States Code, is

4 amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(b) any other offense that is an offense punishable

6 by imprisonment for more than one year and that, by its

7 nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force may

8 be used against the person or property of another, or is

9 an offense punishable under subparagraphs (A), (B), or

10 (C) of section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances

11 Act.’’.

12 SEC. 113. CLARIFICATION TO HEARSAY EXCEPTION FOR

13 FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING.

14 Rule 804(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is

15 amended to read as follows:

16 ‘‘(6) FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING.—A state17 ment offered against a party who has engaged or ac18 quiesced in wrongdoing, or who could reasonably

19 foresee such wrongdoing would take place, if the

20 wrongdoing was intended to, and did, procure the

21 unavailability of the declarant as a witness.’’.

22 SEC. 114. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CRIMINAL USE OF

23 FIREARMS IN CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AND

24 DRUG TRAFFICKING.

25 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 924(c)(1)(A) of title 18,

26 United States Code, is amended—


1279A.AAT
98 

20

H.L.C.

1 (1) in paragraph (1)(A)—

2 (A) by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting ‘‘or

3 conspires to commit any of the above acts,

4 shall, for each instance in which the firearm is

5 used, carried, or possessed’’;

6 (B) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘5 years’’ and

7 inserting ‘‘7 years’’; and

8 (C) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii) and in9 serting the following:

10 ‘‘(ii) if the firearm is discharged, be

11 sentenced to a term of imprisonment of

12 not less than 15 years; and

13 ‘‘(iii) if the firearm is used to wound,

14 injure, or maim another person, be sen15 tenced to a term of imprisonment of not

16 less than 20 years.’’; and

17 (2) by striking paragraph (4).

18 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 924 of title

19 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection

20 (o).

21 SEC. 115. TRANSFER OF JUVENILES.

22 The 4th undesignated paragraph of section 5032 of

23 title 18, United States Code, is amended—

24 (1) by striking ‘‘A juvenile’’ where it appears at

25 the beginning of the paragraph and inserting ‘‘ExVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

1279A.AAU
99 

21

H.L.C.

1 cept as otherwise provided in this chapter, a juve2 nile’’ ;

3 (2) by striking ‘‘as an adult, except that, with’’

4 and inserting ‘‘as an adult. With’’; and

5 (3) by striking ‘‘However, a juvenile’’ and all

6 that follows through ‘‘criminal prosecution.’’ at the

7 end of the paragraph and inserting ‘‘The Attorney

8 General may prosecute as an adult a juvenile who is

9 alleged to have committed an act after that juve10 nile’s 16th birthday which if committed by an adult

11 would be a crime of violence that is a felony, an of12 fense described in subsection (d), (i), (j), (k), (o),

13 (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating to unlaw14 ful acts), or subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m),

15 or (n) of section 924 (relating to penalties), section

16 930 (relating to possession of firearms and dan17 gerous weapons in Federal facilities), or section 931

18 (relating to purchase, ownership, or possession of

19 body armor by violent felons). The decision whether

20 or not to prosecute a juvenile as an adult under the

21 immediately preceding sentence is not subject to ju22 dicial review in any court. In a prosecution under

23 that sentence, the juvenile may be prosecuted and

24 convicted as an adult for any other offense which is

25 properly joined under the Federal Rules of Criminal


1279A.AAV
100 

22

H.L.C.

1 Procedure, and may also be convicted as an adult of

2 any lesser included offense.’’.

3 TITLE II—INCREASED FEDERAL

4 RESOURCES TO DETER AND

5 PREVENT AT-RISK YOUTH

6 FROM JOINING ILLEGAL

7 STREET GANGS

8 SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF AND ASSISTANCE FOR ‘‘HIGH IN9 TENSITY’’ INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY

10 AREAS.

11 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section the following defi12 nitions shall apply:

13 (1) GOVERNOR.—The term ‘‘Governor’’ means

14 a Governor of a State or the Mayor of the District

15 of Columbia.

16 (2) HIGH INTENSITY INTERSTATE GANG ACTIV17 ITY AREA.—The term ‘‘high intensity interstate

18 gang activity area’’ means an area within a State

19 that is designated as a high intensity interstate gang

20 activity area under subsection (b)(1).

21 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means a State

22 of the United States, the District of Columbia, and

23 any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the

24 United States.


1279A.AAW
101 

23

H.L.C.

1 (b) HIGH INTENSITY INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY

2 AREAS.—

3 (1) DESIGNATION.—The Attorney General,

4 after consultation with the Governors of appropriate

5 States, may designate as high intensity interstate

6 gang activity areas, specific areas that are located

7 within 1 or more States.

8 (2) ASSISTANCE.—In order to provide Federal

9 assistance to high intensity interstate gang activity

10 areas, the Attorney General shall—

11 (A) establish criminal street gang enforce12 ment teams, consisting of Federal, State, and

13 local law enforcement authorities, for the co14 ordinated investigation, disruption, apprehen15 sion, and prosecution of criminal street gangs

16 and offenders in each high intensity interstate

17 gang activity area;

18 (B) direct the reassignment or detailing

19 from any Federal department or agency (sub20 ject to the approval of the head of that depart21 ment or agency, in the case of a department or

22 agency other than the Department of Justice)

23 of personnel to each criminal street gang en24 forcement team;


1279A.AAX
102 

24

H.L.C.

1 (C) provide all necessary funding for the

2 operation of the criminal street gang enforce3 ment team in each high intensity interstate

4 gang activity area; and

5 (D) provide all necessary funding for na6 tional and regional meetings of criminal street

7 gang enforcement teams, and all other related

8 organizations, as needed, to ensure effective op9 eration of such teams through the sharing of

10 intelligence, best practices and for any other re11 lated purpose.

12 (3) COMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL STREET GANG

13 ENFORCEMENT TEAM.—The team established pursu14 ant to paragraph (2)(A) shall consist of agents and

15 officers, where feasible, from—

16 (A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

17 (B) the Drug Enforcement Administration;

18 (C) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fire19 arms, and Explosives;

20 (D) the United States Marshals Service;

21 (E) the Directorate of Border and Trans22 portation Security of the Department of Home23 land Security;

24 (F) the Department of Housing and Urban

25 Development;


1279A.AAY
103 

25

H.L.C.

1 (G) State and local law enforcement; and

2 (H) Federal, State, and local prosecutors.

3 (4) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION.—In consid4 ering an area for designation as a high intensity

5 interstate gang activity area under this section, the

6 Attorney General shall consider—

7 (A) the current and predicted levels of

8 gang crime activity in the area;

9 (B) the extent to which violent crime in

10 the area appears to be related to criminal street

11 gang activity, such as drug trafficking, murder,

12 robbery, assaults, carjacking, arson, kidnap13 ping, extortion, and other criminal activity;

14 (C) the extent to which State and local law

15 enforcement agencies have committed resources

16 to—

17 (i) respond to the gang crime prob18 lem; and

19 (ii) participate in a gang enforcement

20 team;

21 (D) the extent to which a significant in22 crease in the allocation of Federal resources

23 would enhance local response to the gang crime

24 activities in the area; and


1279A.AAZ
104 

26

H.L.C.

1 (E) any other criteria that the Attorney

2 General considers to be appropriate.

3 (c) ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS.—The

4 Attorney General is authorized to hire 94 additional As5 sistant United States attorneys to carry out the provisions

6 of this section. Each attorney hired under this subsection

7 shall be assigned to a high intensity interstate gang activ8 ity area.

9 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

10 are authorized to be appropriated—

11 (1) $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years

12 2006 through 2010 to carry out subsection (b); and

13 (2) $7,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006

14 through 2010 to carry out subsection (c).

15 SEC. 202. GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL PROSECUTORS TO

16 COMBAT VIOLENT CRIME AND TO PROTECT

17 WITNESSES AND VICTIMS OF CRIMES.

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 31702 of the Violent

19 Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42

20 U.S.C. 13862) is amended —

21 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

22 end;

23 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at

24 the end and inserting a semicolon; and

25 (3) by adding at the end the following:


1279A.ABA
105 

27

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(5) to hire additional prosecutors to—

2 ‘‘(A) allow more cases to be prosecuted;

3 and

4 ‘‘(B) reduce backlogs;

5 ‘‘(6) to fund technology, equipment, and train6 ing for prosecutors and law enforcement in order to

7 increase accurate identification of gang members

8 and violent offenders, and to maintain databases

9 with such information to facilitate coordination

10 among law enforcement and prosecutors; and

11 ‘‘(7) to fund technology, equipment, and train12 ing for prosecutors to increase the accurate identi13 fication and successful prosecution of young violent

14 offenders.’’.

15 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

16 31707 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

17 Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as

18 follows:

19 ‘‘SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

20 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated

21 $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through

22 2010 to carry out this subtitle.’’.


1279A.ABB
106 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the gentleman from Virginia is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m offering a substitute amendment to H.R. 

1279, which incorporates several technical changes to the original 

bill as introduced, and I’d like to thank Congressman Wolf for his 

help in this bill, and also Congressman Gallegly, who has been 

working on the gang problem for years now and his input in helping to get this bill forward. Let me briefly outline the technical 

changes that the substitute makes. 

First, in Sections 101 and 105 relating to gang crimes and violent 

crimes and aid of racketeering enterprise, I’ve substituted ‘‘for the 

purpose of’’ for ‘‘in order to’’ to ensure that those provisions are 

broadly construed to address the prohibited motive for gang crime 

or violent crime in aid of racketeering enterprise. 

Second, Section 101 is revised to add civil forfeiture of property 

used or acquired in relation to gang crimes, added gang crimes as 

a predicate money-laundering offense, and added some predicate 

firearms offenses when committed in relation to furthering gangs’ illegal activities; modified Section 103(b) to add an interstate commerce element to that offense. 

Fourth, we modified Section 104, the murder for hire statute, to 

conspiracies to commit kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, or 

maiming. 

Five, modified Section 105 to broaden venue for prosecutions of 

VICAR cases. 

And, six, modified Section 109 relating to offenses for which a rebuttable presumption shall exist for detention prior to trial. 

Mr. Chairman, I move the substitute amendment, and I yield 

back my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there any second-degree amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment 

in the nature of a substitute to the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute. 

The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1279, offered by 

Mr. Schiff of California. Strike all after the enacting—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment 

in the nature of a substitute to the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute is considered as read. 

[The amendment in the nature of a substitute follows:] 

107 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

TO H.R. 1279

OFFERED BY MR. SCHIFF OF CALIFORNIA

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

2 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

3 ‘‘Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005’’.

4 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of

5 this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I—CRIMINAL STREET GANG ABATEMENT ACT

Sec. 100. Findings.

Subtitle A—Criminal Law Reforms and Enhanced Penalties to Deter and

Punish Illegal Street Gang Activity

Sec. 101. Solicitation or recruitment of persons in criminal street gang activity.

Sec. 102. Criminal street gangs.

Sec. 103. Violent crimes in furtherance or in aid of criminal street gangs.

Sec. 104. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of criminal

street gangs.

Sec. 105. Amendments relating to violent crime in areas of exclusive Federal

jurisdiction.

Sec. 106. Increased penalties for use of interstate commerce facilities in the

commission of murder-for-hire and other felony crimes of violence.

Sec. 107. Increased penalties for violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity.

Sec. 108. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation to

a drug trafficking crime.

Subtitle B—Increased Federal Resources to Deter and Prevent At-risk Youth

From Joining Illegal Street Gangs

Sec. 110. Designation of and assistance for ‘‘high intensity’’ interstate gang activity areas.


1279B.AAB
108 

2

H.L.C.

Sec. 111. Enhancement of project safe neighborhoods initiative to improve enforcement of criminal laws against violent gangs.

Sec. 112. Additional resources needed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation

to investigate and prosecute violent criminal street gangs.

Sec. 113. Grants to State and local prosecutors to combat violent crime and to

protect witnesses and victims of crimes.

Sec. 114. Reauthorize the gang resistance education and training projects program.

TITLE II—VIOLENT CRIME REFORMS NEEDED TO DETER AND

PREVENT ILLEGAL GANG CRIME

Sec. 201. Multiple interstate murder.

Sec. 202. Expansion of rebuttable presumption against release of persons

charged with firearms offenses.

Sec. 203. Venue in capital cases.

Sec. 204. Statute of limitations for violent crime.

Sec. 205. Predicate crimes for authorization of interception of wire, oral, and

electronic communications.

Sec. 206. Clarification to hearsay exception for forfeiture by wrongdoing.

Sec. 207. Clarification of venue for retaliation against a witness.

Sec. 208. Amendment of sentencing guidelines relating to certain gang and violent crimes.

Sec. 209. Increased penalties for criminal use of firearms in crimes of violence

and drug trafficking.

Sec. 210. Possession of firearms by dangerous felons.

Sec. 211. Conforming amendment.

TITLE III—JUVENILE CRIME REFORM FOR VIOLENT OFFENDERS

Sec. 301. Treatment of Federal juvenile offenders.

Sec. 302. Notification after arrest.

Sec. 303. Release and detention prior to disposition.

Sec. 304. Speedy trial.

Sec. 305. Federal sentencing guidelines.

1 TITLE I—CRIMINAL STREET

2 GANG ABATEMENT ACT

3 SEC. 100. FINDINGS.

4 Congress finds that—

5 (1) violent crime and drug trafficking are per6 vasive problems at the national, State, and local

7 level;


1279B.AAC
109 

3

H.L.C.

1 (2) the crime rate is exacerbated by the associa2 tion of persons in gangs to commit acts of violence

3 and drug offenses;

4 (3) according to the most recent National Drug

5 Threat Assessment, criminal street gangs are re6 sponsible for the distribution of much of the cocaine,

7 methamphetamine, heroin, and other illegal drugs

8 being distributed in rural and urban communities

9 throughout the United States;

10 (4) gangs commit acts of violence or drug of11 fenses for numerous motives, such as membership in

12 or loyalty to the gang, for protecting gang territory,

13 and for profit;

14 (5) gang presence has a pernicious effect on the

15 free flow of commerce in local businesses and di16 rectly affects the freedom and security of commu17 nities plagued by gang activity;

18 (6) gangs often recruit and utilize minors to en19 gage in acts of violence and other serious offenses

20 out of a belief that the criminal justice systems are

21 more lenient on juvenile offenders;

22 (7) gangs often intimidate and threaten wit23 nesses to prevent successful prosecutions;

24 (8) gang recruitment can be deterred through

25 increased vigilance, strong criminal penalties, equal


1279B.AAD
110 

4

H.L.C.

1 partnerships with State and local law enforcement,

2 and proactive intervention efforts, particularly tar3 geted at juveniles, prior to gang involvement;

4 (9) State and local prosecutors, in hearings be5 fore the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate,

6 enlisted the help of Congress in the prevention, in7 vestigation, and prosecution of gang crimes and in

8 the protection of witnesses and victims of gang

9 crimes; and

10 (10) because State and local prosecutors and

11 law enforcement have the expertise, experience, and

12 connection to the community that is needed to com13 bat gang violence, consultation and coordination be14 tween Federal, State, and local law enforcement is

15 critical to the successful prosecutions of criminal

16 street gangs.

17 Subtitle A—Criminal Law Reforms

18 and Enhanced Penalties to

19 Deter and Punish Illegal Street

20 Gang Activity

21 SEC. 101. SOLICITATION OR RECRUITMENT OF PERSONS IN

22 CRIMINAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY.

23 Chapter 26 of title 18, United States Code, is amend24 ed by adding at the end the following:


1279B.AAE
111 

5

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘§ 522. Recruitment of persons to participate in a

2 criminal street gang

3 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITED ACTS.—It shall be unlawful for any

4 person to recruit, employ, solicit, induce, command, or

5 cause another person to be or remain as a member of a

6 criminal street gang, or conspire to do so, with the intent

7 to cause that person to participate in an offense described

8 in section 521(a).

9 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—In this section:

10 ‘‘(1) CRIMINAL STREET GANG.—The term

11 ‘criminal street gang’ shall have the same meaning

12 as in section 521(a) of this title.

13 ‘‘(2) MINOR.—The term ‘minor’ means a per14 son who is less than 18 years of age.

15 ‘‘(c) PENALTIES.—Any person who violates sub16 section (a) shall—

17 ‘‘(1) be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined

18 under this title, or both; or

19 ‘‘(2) if the person recruited, solicited, induced,

20 commanded, or caused to participate or remain in a

21 criminal street gang is under the age of 18—

22 ‘‘(A) be imprisoned for not more than 10

23 years, fined under this title, or both; and

24 ‘‘(B) at the discretion of the sentencing

25 judge, be liable for any costs incurred by the

26 Federal Government, or by any State or local


1279B.AAF
112 

6

H.L.C.

1 government, for housing, maintaining, and

2 treating the person until the person attains the

3 age of 18 years.’’.

4 SEC. 102. CRIMINAL STREET GANGS.

5 (a) CRIMINAL STREET GANG PROSECUTIONS.—Sec6 tion 521 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to

7 read as follows:

8 ‘‘§ 521. Criminal street gang prosecutions

9 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this chapter:

10 ‘‘(1) CRIMINAL STREET GANG.—The term

11 ‘criminal street gang’ means a formal or informal

12 group, club, organization, or association of 3 or

13 more individuals, who individually, jointly, or in

14 combination, have committed or attempted to com15 mit for the direct or indirect benefit of, at the direc16 tion of, in furtherance of, or in association with the

17 group, club organization, or association at least 2

18 separate acts, each of which is a predicate gang

19 crime, 1 of which occurs after the date of enactment

20 of the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence

21 Act of 2004, and the last of which occurs not later

22 than 10 years (excluding any period of imprison23 ment) after the commission of a prior predicate gang

24 crime, and 1 predicate gang crime is a crime of vio25 lence or involves manufacturing, importing, distribVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

1279B.AAG
113 

7

H.L.C.

1 uting, possessing with intent to distribute, or other2 wise dealing in a controlled substance or listed

3 chemicals (as those terms are defined in section 102

4 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))

5 provided that the activities of the criminal street

6 gang affect interstate or foreign commerce, or in7 volve the use of any facility of, or travel in, inter8 state or foreign commerce.

9 ‘‘(2) PREDICATE GANG CRIME.—The term

10 ‘predicate gang crime’ means—

11 ‘‘(A) any act, threat, conspiracy, or at12 tempted act, which is chargeable under Federal

13 or State law and punishable by imprisonment

14 for more than 1 year involving—

15 ‘‘(i) murder;

16 ‘‘(ii) manslaughter;

17 ‘‘(iii) maiming;

18 ‘‘(iv) assault with a dangerous weap19 on;

20 ‘‘(v) assault resulting in serious bodily

21 injury;

22 ‘‘(vi) gambling;

23 ‘‘(vii) kidnapping;

24 ‘‘(viii) robbery;

25 ‘‘(ix) extortion;


1279B.AAH
114 

8

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(x) arson;

2 ‘‘(xi) obstruction of justice;

3 ‘‘(xii) tampering with or retaliating

4 against a witness, victim, or informant;

5 ‘‘(xiii) burglary;

6 ‘‘(xiv) sexual assault (which means

7 any offense that involves conduct that

8 would violate chapter 109A if the conduct

9 occurred in the special maritime and terri10 torial jurisdiction);

11 ‘‘(xv) carjacking; or

12 ‘‘(xvi) manufacturing, importing, dis13 tributing, possessing with intent to dis14 tribute, or otherwise dealing in a controlled

15 substance or listed chemicals (as those

16 terms are defined in section 102 of the

17 Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.

18 802));

19 ‘‘(B) any act punishable by imprisonment

20 for more than 1 year under—

21 ‘‘(i) section 844 (relating to explosive

22 materials);

23 ‘‘(ii) section 922(g)(1) (where the un24 derlying conviction is a violent felony (as

25 defined in section 924(e)(2)(B) of this


1279B.AAI
115 

9

H.L.C.

1 title) or is a serious drug offense (as de2 fined in section 924(e)(2)(A) of this title));

3 ‘‘(iii) subsection (a)(2), (b), (c), (g),

4 or (h) of section 924 (relating to receipt,

5 possession, and transfer of firearms);

6 ‘‘(iv) sections 1028 and 1029 (relating

7 to fraud and related activity in connection

8 with identification documents or access de9 vices);

10 ‘‘(v) section 1503 (relating to obstruc11 tion of justice);

12 ‘‘(vi) section 1510 (relating to ob13 struction of criminal investigations);

14 ‘‘(vii) section 1512 (relating to tam15 pering with a witness, victim, or inform16 ant), or section 1513 (relating to retali17 ating against a witness, victim, or inform18 ant);

19 ‘‘(viii) section 1708 (relating to theft

20 of stolen mail matter);

21 ‘‘(ix) section 1951 (relating to inter22 ference with commerce, robbery or extor23 tion);

24 ‘‘(x) section 1952 (relating to racket25 eering);


1279B.AAJ
116 

10

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(xi) section 1956 (relating to the

2 laundering of monetary instruments);

3 ‘‘(xii) section 1957 (relating to engag4 ing in monetary transactions in property

5 derived from specified unlawful activity);

6 ‘‘(xiii) section 1958 (relating to use of

7 interstate commerce facilities in the com8 mission of murder-for-hire); or

9 ‘‘(xiv) sections 2312 through 2315

10 (relating to interstate transportation of

11 stolen motor vehicles or stolen property);

12 or

13 ‘‘(C) any act involving the Immigration

14 and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to

15 bringing in and harboring certain aliens), sec16 tion 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain

17 aliens to enter the United States), or section

18 278 (relating to importation of alien for im19 moral purpose).

20 ‘‘(3) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of

21 the several States of the United States, the District

22 of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or

23 possession of the United States.

24 ‘‘(b) PARTICIPATION IN CRIMINAL STREET GANGS.—

25 It shall be unlawful—


1279B.AAK
117 

11

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(1) to commit, or conspire or attempt to com2 mit a predicate crime—

3 ‘‘(A) in furtherance or in aid of the activi4 ties of a criminal street gang;

5 ‘‘(B) for the purpose of gaining entrance

6 to or maintaining or increasing position in such

7 a gang; or

8 ‘‘(C) for the direct or indirect benefit of

9 the criminal street gang, or in association with

10 the criminal street gang; or

11 ‘‘(2) to employ, use, command, counsel, per12 suade, induce, entice, or coerce any individual to

13 commit, cause to commit, or facilitate the commis14 sion of, a predicate gang crime—

15 ‘‘(A) in furtherance or in aid of the activi16 ties of a criminal street gang;

17 ‘‘(B) for the purpose of gaining entrance

18 to or maintaining or increasing position in such

19 a gang; or

20 ‘‘(C) for the direct or indirect benefit or

21 the criminal street gang, or in association with

22 the criminal street gang.

23 ‘‘(c) PENALTIES.—Whoever violates paragraph (1) or

24 (2) of subsection (b)—


1279B.AAL
118 

12

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned

2 for not more than 30 years, or both; and

3 ‘‘(2) if the violation is based on a predicate

4 gang crime for which the maximum penalty includes

5 life imprisonment, shall be fined under this title, im6 prisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.

7 ‘‘(d) FORFEITURE.—

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The court, in imposing sen9 tence on a person who is convicted of an offense

10 under this section, shall order that the defendant

11 forfeit to the United States—

12 ‘‘(A) any property, real or personal, consti13 tuting or traceable to gross proceeds obtained

14 from such offense; and

15 ‘‘(B) any property used or intended to be

16 used, in any manner or part, to commit or to

17 facilitate the commission of such violation.

18 ‘‘(2) CRIMINAL PROCEDURES.—The procedures

19 set forth in section 413 of the Controlled Substances

20 Act (21 U.S.C. 853), other than subsection (d) of

21 that section, and in rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules

22 of Criminal Procedure, shall apply to all stages of a

23 criminal forfeiture proceeding under this section.

24 ‘‘(3) CIVIL PROCEDURES.—Property subject to

25 forfeiture under paragraph (1) may be forfeited in


1279B.AAM
119 

13

H.L.C.

1 a civil case pursuant to the procedures set forth in

2 chapter 46 of this title.’’.

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

4 at the beginning of chapter 26 of title 18, United States

5 Code, is amended to read as follows:

‘‘521. Criminal street gang prosecutions.’’.

6 SEC. 103. VIOLENT CRIMES IN FURTHERANCE OR IN AID OF

7 CRIMINAL STREET GANGS.

8 (a) VIOLENT CRIMES AND CRIMINAL STREET GANG

9 RECRUITMENT.—Chapter 26 of title 18, United States

10 Code, as amended by section 101, is amended by adding

11 at the end the following:

12 ‘‘§ 523. Violent crimes in furtherance or in aid of a

13 criminal street gang

14 ‘‘(a) Any person who, for the purpose of gaining en15 trance to or maintaining or increasing position in, or in

16 furtherance or in aid of, or for the direct or indirect ben17 efit of, or in association with a criminal street gang, or

18 as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for

19 a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary

20 value to or from a criminal street gang, murders, kidnaps,

21 sexually assaults (which means any offense that involved

22 conduct that would violate chapter 109A if the conduct

23 occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdic24 tion), maims, assaults with a dangerous weapon, commits

25 assault resulting in serious bodily injury upon, commits


1279B.AAN
120 

14

H.L.C.

1 any other crime of violence or threatens to commit a crime

2 of violence against any individual, or attempts or conspires

3 to do so, shall be punished, in addition and consecutive

4 to the punishment provided for any other violation of this

5 chapter—

6 ‘‘(1) for murder, by death or imprisonment for

7 any term of years or for life, a fine under this title,

8 or both;

9 ‘‘(2) for kidnapping or sexual assault, by im10 prisonment for any term of years or for life, a fine

11 under this title, or both;

12 ‘‘(3) for maiming, by imprisonment for any

13 term of years or for life, a fine under this title, or

14 both;

15 ‘‘(4) for assault with a dangerous weapon or as16 sault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprison17 ment for not more than 30 years, a fine under this

18 title, or both;

19 ‘‘(5) for any other crime of violence, by impris20 onment for not more than 20 years, a fine under

21 this title, or both;

22 ‘‘(6) for threatening to commit a crime of vio23 lence specified in paragraphs (1) through (4), by im24 prisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under

25 this title, or both;


1279B.AAO
121 

15

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(7) for attempting or conspiring to commit

2 murder, kidnapping, maiming, or sexual assault, by

3 imprisonment for not more than 30 years, a fine

4 under this title, or both; and

5 ‘‘(8) for attempting or conspiring to commit a

6 crime involving assault with a dangerous weapon or

7 assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by impris8 onment for not more than 20 years, a fine under

9 this title, or both.

10 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘crimi11 nal street gang’ has the same meaning as in section 521

12 of this title.’’.

13 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

14 at the beginning of chapter 26 of title 18, United States

15 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘522. Recruitment of persons to participate in a criminal street gang.

‘‘523. Violent crimes in furtherance of a criminal street gang.’’.

16 SEC. 104. INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN TRAVEL OR TRANS17 PORTATION IN AID OF RACKETEERING EN18 TERPRISES AND CRIMINAL STREET GANGS.

19 Section 1952 of title 18, United States Code, is

20 amended—

21 (1) in subsection (a)—

22 (A) by striking ‘‘and thereafter performs

23 or attempts to perform’’ and inserting ‘‘and


1279B.AAP
122 

16

H.L.C.

1 thereafter performs, or attempts or conspires to

2 perform’’; and

3 (B) by striking ‘‘5 years’’ and inserting

4 ‘‘10 years’’;

5 (2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as

6 subsections (c) and (d), respectively;

7 (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol8 lowing:

9 ‘‘(b) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign com10 merce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or for11 eign commerce, with the intent to kill, assault, bribe, force,

12 intimidate, or threaten any person, to delay or influence

13 the testimony of, or prevent from testifying, a witness in

14 a State criminal proceeding and thereafter performs, or

15 attempts or conspires to perform, an act described in this

16 subsection, shall—

17 ‘‘(1) be fined under this title, imprisoned for

18 any term of years, or both; and

19 ‘‘(2) if death results, be punished by imprison20 ment for any term of years or for life.’’; and

21 (4) in subsection (c)(2), as redesignated under

22 subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘intimidation of, or

23 retaliation against, a witness, victim, juror, or in24 formant,’’ after ‘‘extortion, bribery,’’.


1279B.AAQ
123 

17

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 105. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIME IN

2 AREAS OF EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDIC3 TION.

4 (a) ASSAULT WITHIN MARITIME AND TERRITORIAL

5 JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES.—Section 113(a)(3) of

6 title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘with

7 intent to do bodily harm, and without just cause or ex8 cuse,’’.

9 (b) MANSLAUGHTER.—Section 1112(b) of title 18,

10 United States Code, is amended by—

11 (1) striking ‘‘ten years’’ and inserting ‘‘20

12 years’’; and

13 (2) striking ‘‘six years’’ and inserting ‘‘10

14 years’’.

15 (c) OFFENSES COMMITTED WITHIN INDIAN COUN16 TRY.—Section 1153(a) of title 18, United States Code, is

17 amended by inserting ‘‘an offense for which the maximum

18 statutory term of imprisonment under section 1363 is

19 greater than 5 years,’’ after ‘‘a felony under chapter

20 109A,’’.

21 (d) RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGA22 NIZATIONS.—Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States

23 Code, is amended—

24 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘, or

25 would have been so chargeable if the act or threat

26 (other than lawful forms of gambling) had not been


1279B.AAR
124 

18

H.L.C.

1 committed in Indian country (as defined in section

2 1151) or in any other area of exclusive Federal ju3 risdiction,’’ after ‘‘chargeable under State law’’; and

4 (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘section

5 1123 (relating to multiple interstate murder),’’ after

6 ‘‘section 1084 (relating to the transmission of wa7 gering information),’’.

8 (e) CARJACKING.—Section 2119 of title 18, United

9 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘, with the intent to

10 cause death or serious bodily harm’’.

11 (f) CLARIFICATION OF ILLEGAL GUN TRANSFERS TO

12 COMMIT DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME OR CRIMES OF VIO13 LENCE.—Section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code,

14 is amended to read as follows:

15 ‘‘(h) ILLEGAL TRANSFERS.—Whoever knowingly

16 transfers a firearm, knowing that the firearm will be used

17 to commit, or possessed in furtherance of, a crime of vio18 lence (as defined in subsection (c)(3)) or drug trafficking

19 crime (as defined in subsection (c)(2)), shall be imprisoned

20 for not more than 10 years, fined under this title, or

21 both.’’.

22 (g) AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL SENTENCING PROVI23 SION.—Section 3582(d) of title 18, United States Code,

24 is amended—


1279B.AAS
125 

19

H.L.C.

1 (1) by striking ‘‘chapter 95 (racketeering) or 96

2 (racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations) of

3 this title’’ and inserting ‘‘section 521 (criminal

4 street gangs) or 522 (violent crimes in furtherance

5 or in aid of criminal street gangs), in chapter 95

6 (racketeering) or 96 (racketeer influenced and cor7 rupt organizations),’’; and

8 (2) by inserting ‘‘a criminal street gang or’’ be9 fore ‘‘an illegal enterprise’’.

10 (h) CONFORMING AMENDMENT RELATING TO OR11 DERS FOR RESTITUTION.—Section 3663(c)(4) of title 18,

12 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘chapter 46

13 or chapter 96 of this title’’ and inserting ‘‘section 521,

14 under chapter 46 or 96,’’.

15 (i) SPECIAL PROVISION FOR INDIAN COUNTRY.—No

16 person subject to the criminal jurisdiction of an Indian

17 tribal government shall be subject to section 3559(e) of

18 title 18, United States Code, for any offense for which

19 Federal jurisdiction is solely predicated on Indian country

20 (as defined in section 1151 of such title 18) and which

21 occurs within the boundaries of such Indian country un22 less the governing body of such Indian tribe elects to sub23 ject the persons under the criminal jurisdiction of the tribe

24 to section 3559(e) of such title 18.


1279B.AAT
126 

20

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 106. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR USE OF INTERSTATE

2 COMMERCE FACILITIES IN THE COMMISSION

3 OF MURDER-FOR-HIRE AND OTHER FELONY

4 CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.

5 Section 1958 of title 18, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) by striking the header and inserting the fol8 lowing:

9 ‘‘§ 1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the

10 Commission of murder-for-hire and other

11 felony crimes of violence’’;

12 and

13 (2) by amending subsection (a) to read as fol14 lows:

15 ‘‘(a) Any person who travels in or causes another (in16 cluding the intended victim) to travel in interstate or for17 eign commerce, or uses or causes another (including the

18 intended victim) to use the mail or any facility in inter19 state or foreign commerce, with intent that a murder or

20 other felony crime of violence be committed in violation

21 of the laws of any State or the United States as consider22 ation for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise

23 or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value, or who

24 conspires to do so—

25 ‘‘(1) may be fined under this title and shall be

26 imprisoned not more than 20 years;


1279B.AAU
127 

21

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(2) if personal injury results, may be fined

2 under this title and shall be imprisoned for not more

3 than 30 years; and

4 ‘‘(3) if death results, may be fined under this

5 title, and shall be imprisoned for any term of years

6 or for life.’’.

7 SEC. 107. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR VIOLENT CRIMES IN

8 AID OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.

9 Section 1959(a) of title 18, United States Code, is

10 amended to read as follows:

11 ‘‘(a) Any person who, as consideration for the receipt

12 of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay,

13 anything of pecuniary value from an enterprise engaged

14 in racketeering activity, or for the purpose of gaining en15 trance to or maintaining or increasing position in an en16 terprise engaged in racketeering activity, or in furtherance

17 or in aid of an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity,

18 murders, kidnaps, sexually assaults (which means any of19 fense that involved conduct that would violate chapter

20 109A if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and

21 territorial jurisdiction), maims, assaults with a dangerous

22 weapon, commits assault resulting in serious bodily injury

23 upon, or threatens to commit a crime of violence against

24 any individual in violation of the laws of any State or the

25 United States, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be


1279B.AAV
128 

22

H.L.C.

1 punished, in addition and consecutive to the punishment

2 provided for any other violation of this chapter—

3 ‘‘(1) for murder, by death or imprisonment for

4 any term of years or for life, a fine under this title,

5 or both;

6 ‘‘(2) for kidnapping or sexual assault, by im7 prisonment for any term of years or for life, a fine

8 under this title, or both;

9 ‘‘(3) for maiming, by imprisonment for any

10 term of years or for life, a fine under this title, or

11 both;

12 ‘‘(4) for assault with a dangerous weapon or as13 sault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprison14 ment for not more than 30 years, a fine under this

15 title, or both;

16 ‘‘(5) for threatening to commit a crime of vio17 lence, by imprisonment for not more than 10 years,

18 a fine under this title, or both;

19 ‘‘(6) for attempting or conspiring to commit

20 murder, kidnapping, maiming, or sexual assault, by

21 imprisonment for not more than 30 years, a fine

22 under this title, or both; and

23 ‘‘(7) for attempting or conspiring to commit as24 sault with a dangerous weapon or assault which

25 would result in serious bodily injury, by imprisonVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

1279B.AAW
129 

23

H.L.C.

1 ment for not more than 20 years, a fine under this

2 title, or both.’’.

3 SEC. 108. MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COM4 MITTED DURING AND IN RELATION TO A

5 DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part D of the Controlled Sub7 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended by adding

8 at the end the following:

9 ‘‘MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED

10 DURING AND IN RELATION TO A DRUG TRAFFICKING

11 CRIME

12 ‘‘SEC. 424. (a) IN GENERAL.—Any person who, dur13 ing and in relation to any drug trafficking crime, murders,

14 kidnaps, sexually assaults (which means any offense that

15 involved conduct that would violate chapter 109A if the

16 conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial

17 jurisdiction), maims, assaults with a dangerous weapon,

18 commits assault resulting in serious bodily injury upon,

19 commits any other crime of violence or threatens to com20 mit a crime of violence against, any individual, or attempts

21 or conspires to do so, shall be punished, in addition and

22 consecutive to the punishment provided for the drug traf23 ficking crime—

24 ‘‘(1) in the case of murder, by death or impris25 onment for any term of years or for life, a fine

26 under title 18, United States Code, or both;


1279B.AAX
130 

24

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(2) in the case of kidnapping or sexual assault

2 by imprisonment for any term of years or for life,

3 a fine under such title 18, or both;

4 ‘‘(3) in the case of maiming, by imprisonment

5 for any term of years or for life, a fine under such

6 title 18, or both;

7 ‘‘(4) in the case of assault with a dangerous

8 weapon or assault resulting in serious bodily injury,

9 by imprisonment not more than 30 years, a fine

10 under such title 18, or both;

11 ‘‘(5) in the case of committing any other crime

12 of violence, by imprisonment for not more than 20

13 years, a fine under this title, or both;

14 ‘‘(6) in the case of threatening to commit a

15 crime of violence specified in paragraphs (1) through

16 (4), by imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a

17 fine under such title 18, or both;

18 ‘‘(7) in the case of attempting or conspiring to

19 commit murder, kidnapping, maiming, or sexual as20 sault, by imprisonment for not more than 30 years,

21 a fine under such title 18, or both; and

22 ‘‘(8) in the case of attempting or conspiring to

23 commit a crime involving assault with a dangerous

24 weapon or assault resulting in serious bodily injury,


1279B.AAY
131 

25

H.L.C.

1 by imprisonment for not more than 20 years, a fine

2 under such title 18, or both.

3 ‘‘(b) VENUE.—A prosecution for a violation of this

4 section may be brought in—

5 ‘‘(1) the judicial district in which the murder or

6 other crime of violence occurred; or

7 ‘‘(2) any judicial district in which the drug traf8 ficking crime may be prosecuted.

9 ‘‘(c) APPLICABLE DEATH PENALTY PROCEDURES.—

10 A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense under

11 this section for which a sentence of death is provided shall

12 be subject to the provisions of chapter 228 of title 18,

13 United States Code.

14 ‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—

15 ‘‘(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the mean16 ing given that term in section 16 of title 18, United

17 States Code; and

18 ‘‘(2) the term ‘drug trafficking crime’ has the

19 meaning given that term in section 924(c)(2) of title

20 18, United States Code.’’.

21 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents

22 for the Controlled Substances Act is amended by inserting

23 after the item relating to section 423, the following:

‘‘Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation

to a drug trafficking crime.’’.


1279B.AAZ
132 

26

H.L.C.

1 Subtitle B—Increased Federal Re2 sources to Suppress, Deter, and

3 Prevent At-risk Youth From

4 Joining Illegal Street Gangs

5 SEC. 110. DESIGNATION OF AND ASSISTANCE FOR ‘‘HIGH IN6 TENSITY’’ INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY

7 AREAS.

8 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section the following defi9 nitions shall apply:

10 (1) GOVERNOR.—The term ‘‘Governor’’ means

11 a Governor of a State or the Mayor of the District

12 of Columbia.

13 (2) HIGH INTENSITY INTERSTATE GANG ACTIV14 ITY AREA.—The term ‘‘high intensity interstate

15 gang activity area’’ means an area within a State

16 that is designated as a high intensity interstate gang

17 activity area under subsection (b)(1).

18 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means a State

19 of the United States, the District of Columbia, and

20 any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the

21 United States. The term ‘‘State’’ shall include an

22 ‘‘Indian tribe’’, as defined by section 102 of the Fed23 erally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25

24 U.S.C. 479a).


1279B.ABA
133 

27

H.L.C.

1 (b) HIGH INTENSITY INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY

2 AREAS.—

3 (1) DESIGNATION.—The Attorney General,

4 after consultation with the Governors of appropriate

5 States, may designate as high intensity interstate

6 gang activity areas, specific areas that are located

7 within 1 or more States. To the extent that the

8 goals of a high intensity interstate gang activity area

9 (HIIGAA) overlap with the goals of a high intensity

10 drug trafficking area (HIDTA), the Attorney Gen11 eral may merge the 2 areas to serve as a dual-pur12 pose entity. The Attorney General may not make the

13 final designation of a high intensity interstate gang

14 activity area without first consulting with and receiv15 ing comment from local elected officials representing

16 communities within the State of the proposed des17 ignation.

18 (2) ASSISTANCE.—In order to provide Federal

19 assistance to high intensity interstate gang activity

20 areas, the Attorney General shall—

21 (A) establish criminal street gang enforce22 ment teams, consisting of Federal, State, and

23 local law enforcement authorities, for the co24 ordinated investigation, disruption, apprehen25 sion, and prosecution of criminal street gangs


1279B.ABB
134 

28

H.L.C.

1 and offenders in each high intensity interstate

2 gang activity area;

3 (B) direct the reassignment or detailing

4 from any Federal department or agency (sub5 ject to the approval of the head of that depart6 ment or agency, in the case of a department or

7 agency other than the Department of Justice)

8 of personnel to each criminal street gang en9 forcement team; and

10 (C) provide all necessary funding for the

11 operation of the criminal street gang enforce12 ment team in each high intensity interstate

13 gang activity area.

14 (3) COMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL STREET GANG

15 ENFORCEMENT TEAM.—The team established pursu16 ant to paragraph (2)(A) shall consist of agents and

17 officers, where feasible, from—

18 (A) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fire19 arms, and Explosives;

20 (B) the Department of Homeland Security;

21 (C) the Department of Housing and Urban

22 Development;

23 (D) the Drug Enforcement Administration;

24 (E) the Internal Revenue Service;

25 (F) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;


1279B.ABC
135 

29

H.L.C.

1 (G) the United States Marshal’s Service;

2 (H) the United States Postal Service;

3 (I) State and local law enforcement; and

4 (J) Federal, State and local prosecutors.

5 (4) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION.—In consid6 ering an area for designation as a high intensity

7 interstate gang activity area under this section, the

8 Attorney General shall consider—

9 (A) the current and predicted levels of

10 gang crime activity in the area;

11 (B) the extent to which violent crime in

12 the area appears to be related to criminal street

13 gang activity, such as drug trafficking, murder,

14 robbery, assaults, carjacking, arson, kidnap15 ping, extortion, and other criminal activity;

16 (C) the extent to which State and local law

17 enforcement agencies have committed resources

18 to—

19 (i) respond to the gang crime prob20 lem; and

21 (ii) participate in a gang enforcement

22 team;

23 (D) the extent to which a significant in24 crease in the allocation of Federal resources


1279B.ABD
136 

30

H.L.C.

1 would enhance local response to the gang crime

2 activities in the area; and

3 (E) any other criteria that the Attorney

4 General considers to be appropriate.

5 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be

7 appropriated $100,000,000 for each of the fiscal

8 years 2005 to 2009 to carry out this section.

9 (2) USE OF FUNDS.—Of amounts made avail10 able under paragraph (1) in each fiscal year—

11 (A) 50 percent shall be used to carry out

12 subsection (b)(2); and

13 (B) 50 percent shall be used to make

14 grants available for community-based programs

15 to provide crime prevention, research, and

16 intervention services that are designed for gang

17 members and at-risk youth in areas designated

18 pursuant to this section as high intensity inter19 state gang activity areas.

20 (3) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—By February

21 1st of each year, the Attorney General shall provide

22 a report to Congress which describes, for each des23 ignated high intensity interstate gang activity

24 area—


1279B.ABE
137 

31

H.L.C.

1 (A) the specific long-term and short-term

2 goals and objectives;

3 (B) the measurements used to evaluate the

4 performance of the high intensity interstate

5 gang activity area in achieving the long-term

6 and short-term goals;

7 (C) the age, composition, and membership

8 of ‘‘gangs’’;

9 (D) the number and nature of crimes com10 mitted by ‘‘gangs’’; and

11 (E) the definition of the term ‘‘gang’’ used

12 to compile this report.

13 SEC. 111. ENHANCEMENT OF PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBOR14 HOODS INITIATIVE TO IMPROVE ENFORCE15 MENT OF CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST VIOLENT

16 GANGS.

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—While maintaining the focus of

18 Project Safe Neighborhoods as a comprehensive, strategic

19 approach to reducing gun violence in America, the Attor20 ney General is authorized to expand the Project Safe

21 Neighborhoods program to require each United States at22 torney to—

23 (1) identify, investigate, and prosecute signifi24 cant criminal street gangs operating within their dis25 trict;


1279B.ABF
138 

32

H.L.C.

1 (2) coordinate the identification, investigation,

2 and prosecution of criminal street gangs among Fed3 eral, State, and local law enforcement agencies; and

4 (3) coordinate and establish criminal street

5 gang enforcement teams, established under section

6 110(b), in high intensity interstate gang activity

7 areas within a United States attorney’s district.

8 (b) ADDITIONAL STAFF FOR PROJECT SAFE NEIGH9 BORHOODS.—

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may

11 hire Assistant United States attorneys, non-attorney

12 coordinators, or paralegals to carry out the provi13 sions of this section.

14 (2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

15 There are authorized to be appropriated $7,500,000

16 for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to

17 carry out this section.

18 SEC. 112. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES NEEDED BY THE FED19 ERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO INVES20 TIGATE AND PROSECUTE VIOLENT CRIMINAL

21 STREET GANGS.

22 (a) RESPONSIBILITIES OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.—

23 The Attorney General is authorized to require the Federal

24 Bureau of Investigation to—


1279B.ABG
139 

33

H.L.C.

1 (1) increase funding for the Safe Streets Pro2 gram; and

3 (2) support the criminal street gang enforce4 ment teams, established under section 110(b), in

5 designated high intensity interstate gang activity

6 areas.

7 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts oth9 erwise authorized, there are authorized to be appro10 priated to the Attorney General $5,000,000 for each

11 of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to carry out

12 the Safe Streets Program.

13 (2) AVAILABILITY.—Any amounts appropriated

14 pursuant to paragraph (1) shall remain available

15 until expended.

16 SEC. 113. GRANTS TO PROSECUTORS AND LAW ENFORCE17 MENT TO COMBAT VIOLENT CRIME AND TO

18 PROTECT WITNESSES AND VICTIMS OF

19 CRIMES.

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 31702 of the Violent

21 Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42

22 U.S.C. 13862) is amended—

23 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

24 end;


1279B.ABH
140 

34

H.L.C.

1 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at

2 the end and inserting a semicolon; and

3 (3) by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘(5) to hire additional prosecutors to—

5 ‘‘(A) allow more cases to be prosecuted;

6 and

7 ‘‘(B) reduce backlogs;

8 ‘‘(6) to fund technology, equipment, and train9 ing for prosecutors and law enforcement in order to

10 increase accurate identification of gang members

11 and violent offenders, and to maintain databases

12 with such information to facilitate coordination

13 among law enforcement and prosecutors; and

14 ‘‘(7) to create and expand witness and victim

15 protection programs to prevent threats, intimidation,

16 and retaliation against victims of, and witnesses to,

17 violent crimes.’’.

18 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

19 31707 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

20 Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as

21 follows:

22 ‘‘SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

23 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be ap24 propriated $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2005

25 through 2009 to carry out this subtitle.


1279B.ABI
141 

35

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(b) USE OF FUNDS.—Of the amounts made avail2 able under subsection (a), in each fiscal year 60 percent

3 shall be used to carry out section 31702(7) to create and

4 expand witness and victim protection programs to prevent

5 threats, intimidation, and retaliation against victims of,

6 and witnesses to, violent crimes.’’.

7 SEC. 114. REAUTHORIZE THE GANG RESISTANCE EDU8 CATION AND TRAINING PROJECTS PROGRAM.

9 Section 32401(b) of the Violent Crime Control Act

10 of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13921(b)) is amended by striking

11 paragraphs (1) through (6) and inserting the following:

12 ‘‘(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;

13 ‘‘(2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;

14 ‘‘(3) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;

15 ‘‘(4) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and

16 ‘‘(5) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.’’.

17 TITLE II—VIOLENT CRIME RE18 FORMS NEEDED TO DETER

19 AND PREVENT ILLEGAL GANG

20 CRIME

21 SEC. 201. MULTIPLE INTERSTATE MURDER.

22 Chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code, is amend23 ed by adding at the end of the new section:


1279B.ABJ
142 

36

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘§ 1123. Multiple murders in furtherance of common

2 scheme of purpose

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever, having committed

4 murder in violation of the laws of any State or the United

5 States, moves or travels in interstate or foreign commerce

6 with the intent to commit one or more murders in violation

7 of the laws of any State or the United States, and there8 after commits one or more murders in violation of the laws

9 of any State or the United States in furtherance of a com10 mon scheme or purpose, or who conspires to do so—

11 ‘‘(1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned

12 for not more than 30 years, or both, for each mur13 der; and

14 ‘‘(2) if death results, may be fined not more

15 than $250,000 under this title, and shall be pun16 ished by death or imprisoned for any term of years

17 or for life for each murder.

18 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—The term ‘State’ means each of

19 the several States of the United States, the District of

20 Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession

21 of the United States.’’.

22 SEC. 202. EXPANSION OF REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION

23 AGAINST RELEASE OF PERSONS CHARGED

24 WITH FIREARMS OFFENSES.

25 Section 3142 of title 18, United States Code, is

26 amended—


1279B.ABK
143 

37

H.L.C.

1 (1) in subsection (e), in the matter following

2 paragraph (3)—

3 (A) by inserting ‘‘an offense under section

4 922(g)(1) where the underlying conviction is a

5 serious drug offense as defined in section

6 924(e)(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code,

7 for which a period of not more than 10 years

8 has elapsed since the date of the conviction or

9 the release of the person from imprisonment,

10 whichever is later, or is a serious violent felony

11 as defined in section 3559(c)(2)(F) of title 18,

12 United States Code,’’ after ‘‘that the person

13 committed’’; and

14 (B) by inserting ‘‘or’’ before ‘‘the Mari15 time’’;

16 (2) in subsection (f)(1)—

17 (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘or’’

18 at the end; and

19 (B) by adding at the end the following:

20 ‘‘(E) an offense under section 922(g); or’’;

21 and

22 (3) in subsection (g), by amending paragraph

23 (1) to read as follows:

24 ‘‘(1) the nature and circumstances of the of25 fense charged, including whether the offense is a


1279B.ABL
144 

38

H.L.C.

1 crime of violence, or involves a drug, firearm, explo2 sive, or destructive devise;’’.

3 SEC. 203. VENUE IN CAPITAL CASES.

4 Section 3235 of title 18, United States Code, is

5 amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘§ 3235. Venue in capital cases

7 ‘‘(a) The trial for any offense punishable by death

8 shall be held in the district where the offense was com9 mitted or in any district in which the offense began, con10 tinued, or was completed.

11 ‘‘(b) If the offense, or related conduct, under sub12 section (a) involves activities which affect interstate or for13 eign commerce, or the importation of an object or person

14 into the United States, such offense may be prosecuted

15 in any district in which those activities occurred.’’.

16 SEC. 204. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIME.

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 214 of title 18, United

18 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol19 lowing:

20 ‘‘§ 3297. Violent crime offenses

21 ‘‘Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no

22 person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any non23 capital felony, crime of violence (as defined in section 16),

24 including any racketeering activity or gang crime which


1279B.ABM
145 

39

H.L.C.

1 involves any violent crime, unless the indictment is found

2 or the information is instituted by the later of—

3 ‘‘(1) 10 years after the date on which the al4 leged violation occurred;

5 ‘‘(2) 10 years after the date on which the con6 tinuing offense was completed; or

7 ‘‘(3) 8 years after the date on which the alleged

8 violation was first discovered.’’.

9 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

10 at the beginning of chapter 214 of title 18, United States

11 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘3296. Violent crime offenses.’’.

12 SEC. 205. PREDICATE CRIMES FOR AUTHORIZATION OF

13 INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ORAL, AND ELEC14 TRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

15 Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is

16 amended—

17 (1) in paragraph (q), by striking ‘‘or’.’’;

18 (2) by redesignating paragraph (r) as para19 graph (u); and

20 (3) by inserting after paragraph (q) the fol21 lowing:

22 ‘‘(r) any violation of section 424 of the Con23 trolled Substances Act (relating to murder and other

24 violent crimes in furtherance of a drug trafficking

25 crime);


1279B.ABN
146 

40

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(s) any violation of 1123 of title 18, United

2 States Code (relating to multiple interstate murder);

3 ‘‘(t) any violation of section 521, 522, or 523

4 (relating to criminal street gangs); or’’.

5 SEC. 206. CLARIFICATION TO HEARSAY EXCEPTION FOR

6 FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING.

7 Rule 804(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is

8 amended to read as follows:

9 ‘‘(6) FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING.—A state10 ment offered against a party that has engaged, ac11 quiesced, or conspired, in wrongdoing that was in12 tended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the

13 declarant as a witness.’’.

14 SEC. 207. CLARIFICATION OF VENUE FOR RETALIATION

15 AGAINST A WITNESS.

16 Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is

17 amended by—

18 (1) redesignating subsection (e) beginning with

19 ‘‘Whoever conspires’’ as subsection (f); and

20 (2) adding at the end the following:

21 ‘‘(g) A prosecution under this section may be brought

22 in the district in which the official proceeding (whether

23 or not pending, about to be instituted or was completed)

24 was intended to be affected or was completed, or in which

25 the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.’’.


1279B.ABO
147 

41

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 208. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RE2 LATING TO CERTAIN GANG AND VIOLENT

3 CRIMES.

4 (a) DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SEN5 TENCING COMMISSION.—Pursuant to its authority under

6 section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in ac7 cordance with this section, the United States Sentencing

8 Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend its

9 guidelines and its policy statements to conform to the pro10 visions of title I and this title.

11 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out this section,

12 the Sentencing Commission shall—

13 (1) establish new guidelines and policy state14 ments, as warranted, in order to implement new or

15 revised criminal offenses created under this title;

16 (2) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and

17 policy statements reflect the serious nature of the of18 fenses and the penalties set forth in this title, the

19 growing incidence of serious gang and violent

20 crimes, and the need to modify the sentencing guide21 lines and policy statements to deter, prevent, and

22 punish such offenses;

23 (3) consider the extent to which the guidelines

24 and policy statements adequately address—


1279B.ABP
148 

42

H.L.C.

1 (A) whether the guideline offense levels

2 and enhancements for gang and violent

3 crimes—

4 (i) are sufficient to deter and punish

5 such offenses; and

6 (ii) are adequate in view of the statu7 tory increases in penalties contained in the

8 Act; and

9 (B) whether any existing or new specific

10 offense characteristics should be added to re11 flect congressional intent to increase gang and

12 violent crime penalties, punish offenders, and

13 deter gang and violent crime;

14 (4) assure reasonable consistency with other

15 relevant directives and with other sentencing guide16 lines;

17 (5) account for any additional aggravating or

18 mitigating circumstances that might justify excep19 tions to the generally applicable sentencing ranges;

20 (6) make any necessary conforming changes to

21 the sentencing guidelines; and

22 (7) assure that the guidelines adequately meet

23 the purposes of sentencing under section 3553(a)(2)

24 of title 18, United States Code.


1279B.ABQ
149 

43

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 209. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CRIMINAL USE OF

2 FIREARMS IN CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AND

3 DRUG TRAFFICKING.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 924(c)(1)(A) of title 18,

5 United States Code, is amended—

6 (1) by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting ‘‘or con7 spires to commit any of the above acts, shall, for

8 each instance in which the firearm is used, carried,

9 or possessed’’;

10 (2) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘5 years’’ and in11 serting ‘‘7 years’’; and

12 (3) by striking clause (ii).

13 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 924 of

14 title 18, United States Code, is amended—

15 (1) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (4);

16 and

17 (2) by striking subsection (o).

18 SEC. 210. POSSESSION OF FIREARMS BY DANGEROUS FEL19 ONS.

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 924(e) of title 18, United

21 States Code, is amended to read as follows:

22 ‘‘(e)(1) In the case of a person who violates section

23 922(g) of this title and has previously been convicted by

24 any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) for a violent

25 felony or a serious drug offense shall—


1279B.ABR
150 

44

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(A) in the case of 1 such prior conviction,

2 where a period of not more than 10 years has

3 elapsed since the date of conviction or release of the

4 person from imprisonment for that conviction, be

5 subject to imprisonment for not more than 15 years,

6 a fine under this title, or both;

7 ‘‘(B) in the case of 2 such prior convictions,

8 committed on occasions different from one another,

9 and where a period of not more than 10 years has

10 elapsed since the date of conviction or release of the

11 person from imprisonment for that conviction, be

12 subject to imprisonment for not more than 20 years,

13 a fine under this title, or both; and

14 ‘‘(C) in the case of 3 such prior convictions,

15 committed on occasions different from one another,

16 be subject to imprisonment for not less than 15

17 years, a fine under this title, or both, and notwith18 standing any other provision of law, the court shall

19 not suspend the sentence of, or grant a probationary

20 sentence to, such person with respect to the convic21 tion under section 922(g).

22 ‘‘(2) As used in this subsection—

23 ‘‘(A) the term ‘serious drug offense’ means—

24 ‘‘(i) an offense under the Controlled Sub25 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the ConVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

1279B.ABS
151 

45

H.L.C.

1 trolled Substances Import and Export Act (21

2 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), or the Maritime Drug Law

3 Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1901 et

4 seq.), punishable by a maximum term of impris5 onment of not less than 10 years; or

6 ‘‘(ii) an offense under State law, involving

7 manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with

8 intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled

9 substance (as defined in section 102 of the Con10 trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), pun11 ishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of

12 not less than 10 years;

13 ‘‘(B) the term ‘violent felony’ means any crime

14 punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding 1

15 year, or any act of juvenile delinquency involving the

16 use or carrying of a firearm, knife, or destructive de17 vice that would be punishable by a maximum term

18 of imprisonment for such term if committed by an

19 adult, that—

20 ‘‘(i) has, as an element of the crime or act,

21 the use, attempted use, or threatened use of

22 physical force against the person of another; or

23 ‘‘(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, in24 volves the use of explosives, or otherwise inVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

1279B.ABT
152 

46

H.L.C.

1 volves conduct that presents a serious potential

2 risk of physical injury to another; and

3 ‘‘(C) the term ‘conviction’ includes a finding

4 that a person has committed an act of juvenile delin5 quency involving a violent felony.’’.

6 (b) AMENDMENT TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES.—

7 Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28,

8 United States Code, the United States Sentencing Com9 mission shall amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to

10 provide for an appropriate increase in the offense level for

11 violations of section 922(g) of title 18, United States

12 Code, in accordance with section 924(e) of such title 18,

13 as amended by subsection (a).

14 SEC. 211. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

15 The matter before paragraph (1) in section 922(d)

16 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting

17 ‘‘, transfer,’’ after ‘‘sell’’.

18 TITLE III—JUVENILE CRIME RE19 FORM FOR VIOLENT OFFEND20 ERS

21 SEC. 301. TREATMENT OF FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5032 of title 18, United

23 States Code, is amended to read as follows:


1279B.ABU
153 

47

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘§ 5032. Delinquency proceedings in district courts;

2 juveniles tried as adults; transfer for

3 criminal prosecution

4 ‘‘(a) DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS IN DISTRICT

5 COURTS.—

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A juvenile alleged to have

7 committed an act of juvenile delinquency, other than

8 a violation of law committed within the special mari9 time and territorial jurisdiction of the United States

10 for which the maximum authorized term of impris11 onment does not exceed 6 months, shall not be pro12 ceeded against in any court of the United States un13 less the Attorney General, after investigation, cer14 tifies to the appropriate district court of the United

15 States that—

16 ‘‘(A) the juvenile court or other appro17 priate court of a State does not have jurisdic18 tion or refuses to assume jurisdiction over that

19 juvenile with respect to such alleged act of juve20 nile delinquency;

21 ‘‘(B) the State does not have available pro22 grams and services adequate for the needs of

23 juveniles; or

24 ‘‘(C) the offense charged is a crime of vio25 lence that is a felony or an offense described in

26 section 401 of the Controlled Substances Act


1279B.ABV
154 

48

H.L.C.

1 (21 U.S.C. 841), section 1002(a), 1003, 1005,

2 1009, or 1010(b) (1), (2), or (3) of the Con3 trolled Substances Import and Export Act (21

4 U.S.C. 952(a), 953, 955, 959, 960(b) (1), (2),

5 (3)), section 922(x), or section 924 (b), (g), or

6 (h) of this title, and there is a substantial Fed7 eral interest in the case or the offense to war8 rant the exercise of Federal jurisdiction.

9 ‘‘(2) FAILURE TO CERTIFY.—If the Attorney

10 General does not certify under paragraph (1), the

11 juvenile shall be surrendered to the appropriate legal

12 authorities of such State.

13 ‘‘(3) FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS.—If an alleged

14 juvenile delinquent is not surrendered to the authori15 ties of a State pursuant to this section, any pro16 ceedings against him shall be in an appropriate dis17 trict court of the United States. For such purposes,

18 the court may be convened at any time and place

19 within the district, in chambers or otherwise. The

20 Attorney General shall proceed by information or as

21 authorized under section 3401(g) of this title, and

22 no criminal prosecution shall be instituted for the al23 leged act of juvenile delinquency except as provided

24 below.


1279B.ABW
155 

49

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(b) TRANSFER FOR FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROSECU2 TION.—

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A juvenile who is alleged to

4 have committed an act of juvenile delinquency and

5 who is not surrendered to State authorities shall be

6 proceeded against under this chapter unless—

7 ‘‘(A) the juvenile has requested in writing

8 upon advice of counsel to be proceeded against

9 as an adult;

10 ‘‘(B) with respect to a juvenile 15 years

11 and older alleged to have committed an act

12 after his fifteenth birthday which if committed

13 by an adult would be a felony that is a crime

14 of violence or an offense described in section

15 401 of the Controlled Substances Act (21

16 U.S.C. 841), or section 1002(a), 1005, or 1009

17 of the Controlled Substances Import and Ex18 port Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a), 955, 959), or sec19 tion 922(x) of this title, or in section 924 (b),

20 (g), or (h) of this title, the Attorney General

21 makes a motion to transfer the criminal pros22 ecution on the basis of the alleged act in the

23 appropriate district court of the United States

24 and the court finds, after hearing, such transfer


1279B.ABX
156 

50

H.L.C.

1 would be in the interest of justice as provided

2 in paragraph (2); or

3 ‘‘(C) with respect to a juvenile 13 years

4 and older alleged to have committed an act

5 after his thirteenth birthday which if committed

6 by an adult would be a felony that is the crime

7 of violence under section 113 (a), (b), (c), 1111,

8 1113, or, if the juvenile possessed a firearm

9 during the offense, an offense under section

10 2111, 2113, 2241(a), or 2241(c), the Attorney

11 General makes a motion to transfer the crimi12 nal prosecution on the basis of the alleged act

13 in the appropriate district court of the United

14 States and the court finds, after hearing, such

15 transfer would be in the interest of justice as

16 provided in paragraph (2).

17 Notwithstanding sections 1152 and 1153, no person

18 subject to the criminal jurisdiction of an Indian trib19 al government shall be subject to subparagraph (C)

20 for any offense the Federal jurisdiction for which is

21 predicated solely on Indian country (as defined in

22 section 1151), and which has occurred within the

23 boundaries of such Indian country, unless the gov24 erning body of the tribe has elected that the preVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

1279B.ABY
157 

51

H.L.C.

1 ceding sentence have effect over land and persons

2 subject to its criminal jurisdiction.

3 ‘‘(2) FACTORS.—

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Evidence of the fol5 lowing factors shall be considered, and findings

6 with regard to each factor shall be made in the

7 record, in assessing whether a transfer under

8 subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), and

9 paragraph (4) of subsection (d), would be in the

10 interest of justice:

11 ‘‘(i) The age and social background of

12 the juvenile.

13 ‘‘(ii) The nature of the alleged of14 fense, including the extent to which the ju15 venile played a leadership role in an orga16 nization, or otherwise influenced other per17 sons to take part in criminal activities.

18 ‘‘(iii) Whether prosecution of the juve19 nile as an adult would protect public safe20 ty.

21 ‘‘(iv) The extent and nature of the ju22 venile’s prior delinquency record.

23 ‘‘(v) The juvenile’s present intellectual

24 development and psychological maturity.


1279B.ABZ
158 

52

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(vi) The nature of past treatment ef2 forts and the juvenile’s response to such

3 efforts.

4 ‘‘(vii) The availability of programs de5 signed to treat the juvenile’s behavioral

6 problems.

7 ‘‘(B) NATURE OF THE OFFENSE.—In con8 sidering the nature of the offense, as required

9 by this paragraph, the court shall consider the

10 extent to which the juvenile played a leadership

11 role in an organization, or otherwise influenced

12 other persons to take part in criminal activities,

13 involving the use or distribution of controlled

14 substances or firearms. Such a factor, if found

15 to exist, shall weigh in favor of a transfer to

16 adult status, but the absence of this factor shall

17 not preclude such a transfer.

18 ‘‘(C) NOTICE.—Reasonable notice of the

19 transfer hearing under subparagraph (B) or (C)

20 of paragraph (1) shall be given to the juvenile,

21 the juvenile’s parents, guardian, or custodian

22 and to the juvenile’s counsel. The juvenile shall

23 be assisted by counsel during the transfer hear24 ing, and at every other critical stage of the pro25 ceedings.


1279B.ACA
159 

53

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(c) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF JUVENILE 16 OR

2 OLDER.—A juvenile who is alleged to have committed an

3 act on or after his sixteenth birthday, which if committed

4 by an adult would be a felony offense, that has an element

5 thereof the use, attempted use, or threatened use of phys6 ical force against the person of another, or that, by its

7 very nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force

8 against the person of another, may be used in committing

9 the offense or would be an offense described in section

10 32, 81, or 2275 or subsection (d), (e), (f), (h), or (i) of

11 section 844 of this title, subsection (d) or (e) or subpara12 graphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of subsection (b)(1) of

13 section 401 of the Controlled Substances Act, or section

14 1002(a), 1003, or 1009, or paragraphs (1), (2), or (3)

15 of section 1010(b) of the Controlled Substances Import

16 and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a), 953, 959, 960(b) (1),

17 (2), and (3)), and who has previously been found guilty

18 of an act which if committed by an adult would have been

19 one of the offenses set forth in this subsection or sub20 section (b), or an offense in violation of a State felony

21 statute that would have been such an offense if a cir22 cumstance giving rise to Federal jurisdiction had existed,

23 shall be transferred, upon notification by the United

24 States, to the appropriate district court of the United

25 States for criminal prosecution.


1279B.ACB
160 

54

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(d) SIXTEEN AND SEVENTEEN YEAR OLDS

2 CHARGED WITH THE MOST SERIOUS VIOLENT FELO3 NIES.—

4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

5 provision of law, a juvenile may be prosecuted as an

6 adult if the juvenile is alleged to have committed,

7 conspired, solicited or attempted to commit, on or

8 after the day the juvenile attains the age of 16 any

9 offense involving—

10 ‘‘(A) murder;

11 ‘‘(B) manslaughter;

12 ‘‘(C) assault with intent to commit murder;

13 ‘‘(D) sexual assault (which means any of14 fense that involves conduct that would violate

15 chapter 109A if the conduct occurred in the

16 special maritime and territorial jurisdiction);

17 ‘‘(E) robbery (as described in section 2111,

18 2113, or 2118);

19 ‘‘(F) carjacking with a dangerous weapon;

20 ‘‘(G) extortion;

21 ‘‘(H) arson;

22 ‘‘(I) firearms use;

23 ‘‘(J) firearms possession (as described in

24 section 924(c);

25 ‘‘(K) drive-by shooting;


1279B.ACC
161 

55

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(L) kidnapping;

2 ‘‘(M) maiming;

3 ‘‘(N) assault resulting in serious bodily in4 jury; or

5 ‘‘(O) obstruction of justice (as described in

6 1512(a)(1)) on or after the day the juvenile at7 tains the age of 16.

8 ‘‘(2) OTHER OFFENSES.—In a prosecution

9 under this subsection the juvenile may be prosecuted

10 and convicted as an adult for any other offense

11 which is properly joined under the Federal Rules of

12 Criminal Procedure, and may also be convicted as an

13 adult of a lesser included offense.

14 ‘‘(3) REVIEWABILITY.—Except as otherwise

15 provided by this subsection, a determination to ap16 prove or not to approve, or to institute or not to in17 stitute, a prosecution under this subsection shall not

18 be reviewable in any court.

19 ‘‘(4) PROSECUTION.—(A) In any prosecution of

20 a juvenile under this subsection, upon motion of the

21 defendant, the court in which the criminal charges

22 have been filed shall after a hearing determine

23 whether to issue an order that the defendant should

24 be transferred to juvenile status.


1279B.ACD
162 

56

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(B) A motion by a defendant under this para2 graph shall not be considered unless filed no later

3 than 30 days after the date on which the defendant

4 initially appears through counsel or expressly waives

5 the right to counsel and elects to proceed pro se.

6 ‘‘(C) The court shall not order the transfer of

7 a defendant to juvenile status under this paragraph

8 unless the defendant establishes by the preponder9 ance of the evidence that removal to juvenile status

10 would be in the interest of justice. In making a de11 termination under this paragraph, the court shall

12 consider the factors specified in subsection (b)(2) of

13 this section.

14 ‘‘(5) ORDER.—An order of the court made in

15 ruling on a motion by a defendant to transfer a de16 fendant to juvenile status under this subsection shall

17 not be a final order for the purpose of enabling an

18 appeal, except that an appeal by the United States

19 shall lie to a court of appeals pursuant to section

20 3731 of this title from an order of a district court

21 removing a defendant to juvenile status. Upon re22 ceipt of a notice of appeal of an order under this

23 paragraph, a court of appeals shall hear and deter24 mine the appeal on an expedited basis. The court of

25 appeals shall give due regard to the opportunity of


1279B.ACE
163 

57

H.L.C.

1 the district court to judge the credibility of the wit2 nesses, and shall accept the findings of fact of the

3 district court unless they are clearly erroneous, and

4 the court of appeals shall review de novo the district

5 court’s application of the law to the facts.

6 ‘‘(e) SIXTEEN AND SEVENTEEN YEAR OLDS

7 CHARGED WITH OTHER SERIOUS VIOLENT FELONIES.—

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided by sub9 section (d), a juvenile may be prosecuted as an adult

10 if the juvenile is alleged to have committed an act

11 on or after the day the juvenile attains the age of

12 16 which is committed by an adult would be a seri13 ous violent felony as described in paragraphs (2) and

14 (3) of section 3559(a).

15 ‘‘(2) OTHER OFFENSES.—In a prosecution

16 under this subsection the juvenile may be prosecuted

17 and convicted as an adult for any other offense

18 which is properly joined under the Federal Rules of

19 Criminal Procedure, and may also be convicted as an

20 adult of a lesser included offense.

21 ‘‘(3) REVIEWABILITY.—Except as otherwise

22 provided by this subsection, a determination to ap23 prove or not to approve, or to institute or not to in24 stitute, a prosecution under this subsection shall not

25 be reviewable in any court.


1279B.ACF
164 

58

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(4) PROSECUTION.—(A) In any prosecution of

2 a juvenile under this subsection, upon motion of the

3 defendant, the court in which the criminal charges

4 have been filed shall after a hearing determine

5 whether to issue an order that the defendant should

6 be transferred to juvenile status.

7 ‘‘(B) A motion by a defendant under this para8 graph shall not be considered unless filed no later

9 than 30 days after the date on which the defendant

10 initially appears through counsel or expressly waives

11 the right to counsel and elects to proceed pro se.

12 ‘‘(C) The court shall not order the transfer of

13 a defendant to juvenile status under this paragraph

14 unless the defendant establishes by the preponder15 ance of the evidence that removal to juvenile status

16 would be in the interest of justice. In making a de17 termination under this paragraph, the court shall

18 consider the factors specified in subsection (b)(2) of

19 this section.

20 ‘‘(5) ORDER.—An order of the court made in

21 ruling on a motion by a defendant to transfer a de22 fendant to juvenile status under this subsection shall

23 be a final order for the purpose of enabling an ap24 peal. Upon receipt of a notice of appeal of an order

25 under this paragraph, a court of appeals shall hear


1279B.ACG
165 

59

H.L.C.

1 and determine the appeal on an expedited basis. The

2 court of appeals shall give due regard to the oppor3 tunity of the district court to judge the credibility of

4 the witnesses, and shall accept the findings of fact

5 of the district court unless they are clearly erro6 neous, and the court of appeals shall review de novo

7 the district court’s application of the law to the

8 facts.

9 ‘‘(f) PROCEEDINGS.—

10 ‘‘(1) SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING BARRED.—

11 Once a juvenile has entered a plea of guilty or the

12 proceeding has reached the stage that evidence has

13 begun to be taken with respect to a crime or an al14 leged act of juvenile delinquency subsequent criminal

15 prosecution or juvenile proceedings based upon such

16 alleged act of delinquency shall be barred.

17 ‘‘(2) STATEMENTS.—Statements made by a ju18 venile prior to or during a transfer hearing under

19 this section shall not be admissible at subsequent

20 criminal prosecutions except for impeachment pur21 poses or in a prosecution for perjury or making a

22 false statement.

23 ‘‘(3) FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.—Whenever a ju24 venile transferred to district court under subsection

25 (b) or (c) is not convicted of the crime upon which


1279B.ACH
166 

60

H.L.C.

1 the transfer was based or another crime which would

2 have warranted transfer had the juvenile been ini3 tially charged with that crime, further proceedings

4 concerning the juvenile shall be conducted pursuant

5 to the provisions of this chapter.

6 ‘‘(4) RECEIPT OF RECORDS.—A juvenile shall

7 not be transferred to adult prosecution under sub8 section (b) nor shall a hearing be held under section

9 5037 (disposition after a finding of juvenile delin10 quency) until any prior juvenile court records of

11 such juvenile have been received by the court, or the

12 clerk of the juvenile court has certified in writing

13 that the juvenile has no prior record, or that the ju14 venile’s record is unavailable and why it is unavail15 able.

16 ‘‘(5) SPECIFIC ACTS DESCRIBED.—Whenever a

17 juvenile is adjudged delinquent pursuant to the pro18 visions of this chapter, the specific acts which the ju19 venile has been found to have committed shall be de20 scribed as part of the official record of the pro21 ceedings and part of the juvenile’s official record.

22 ‘‘(g) STATE.—For purposes of this section, the term

23 ‘State’ includes a State of the United States, the District

24 of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or posses25 sion of the United States.’’.


1279B.ACI
167 

61

H.L.C.

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysis for

2 chapter 403 of title 18, United States Code, is amended

3 by striking the item relating to section 5032 and inserting

4 the following:

‘‘5032. Delinquency proceedings in district courts; juveniles tried as adults;

transfer for criminal prosecution.’’.

5 SEC. 302. NOTIFICATION AFTER ARREST.

6 Section 5033 of title 18, United States Code, is

7 amended in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘immediately

8 notify the Attorney General and’’ and inserting ‘‘imme9 diately, or as soon as practicable thereafter, notify the At10 torney General and shall promptly take reasonable steps

11 to notify’’.

12 SEC. 303. RELEASE AND DETENTION PRIOR TO DISPOSI13 TION.

14 (a) DUTIES OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE.—Section 5034

15 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

16 (1) in the first undesignated paragraph, by

17 striking ‘‘The magistrate judge shall insure’’ and in18 serting the following:

19 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—

20 ‘‘(1) REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL.—The

21 magistrate judge shall ensure’’;

22 (2) in the second undesignated paragraph, by

23 striking ‘‘The magistrate judge may appoint’’ and

24 inserting the following:


1279B.ACJ
168 

62

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(2) GUARDIAN AD LITEM.—The magistrate

2 judge may appoint’’;

3 (3) in the third undesignated paragraph, by

4 striking ‘‘If the juvenile’’ and inserting the following:

5 ‘‘(b) RELEASE PRIOR TO DISPOSITION.—Except as

6 provided in subsection (c), if the juvenile’’; and

7 (4) by adding at the end the following:

8 ‘‘(c) RELEASE OF CERTAIN JUVENILES.—

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A juvenile, who is to be

10 tried as an adult under section 5032, shall be re11 leased pending trial in accordance with the applica12 ble provisions of chapter 207.

13 ‘‘(2) CONDITIONS.—A release under paragraph

14 (1) shall be conducted in the same manner, and

15 shall be subject to the same terms, conditions, and

16 sanctions for violation of a release condition, as pro17 vided for an adult under chapter 207.

18 ‘‘(d) PENALTY FOR AN OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE

19 ON RELEASE.—

20 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A juvenile alleged to have

21 committed, while on release under this section, an

22 offense that, if committed by an adult, would be a

23 Federal criminal offense, shall be subject to prosecu24 tion under section 5032.


1279B.ACK
169 

63

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(2) APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PENALTIES.—

2 Section 3147 shall apply to a juvenile who is to be

3 tried as an adult under section 5032 for an offense

4 committed while on release under this section.’’.

5 (b) DETENTION PRIOR TO DISPOSITION.—Section

6 5035 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘A juvenile’’ and inserting the

8 following:

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

10 (b), a juvenile’’; and

11 (2) by adding at the end the following:

12 ‘‘(b) DETENTION OF CERTAIN JUVENILES.—A juve13 nile who is to be tried as an adult under section 5032

14 shall be subject to detention in accordance with chapter

15 207.’’.

16 SEC. 304. SPEEDY TRIAL.

17 Section 5036 of title 18, United States Code, is

18 amended to read as follows:

19 ‘‘§ 5036. Speedy trial

20 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—If an alleged delinquent, who is

21 to be proceeded against as a juvenile pursuant to section

22 5032 and who is in detention pending trial, is not brought

23 to trial within 70 days from the date upon which such

24 detention began, the information shall be dismissed on moVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:33 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

1279B.ACL
170 

64

H.L.C.

1 tion of the alleged delinquent or at the direction of the

2 court.

3 ‘‘(b) PERIODS OF EXCLUSION.—The periods of exclu4 sion under section 3161(h) shall apply to this section.

5 ‘‘(c) JUDICIAL CONSIDERATIONS.—In determining

6 whether an information should be dismissed with or with7 out prejudice, the court shall consider—

8 ‘‘(1) the seriousness of the alleged act of juve9 nile delinquency;

10 ‘‘(2) the facts and circumstances of the case

11 that led to the dismissal; and

12 ‘‘(3) the impact of a reprosecution on the ad13 ministration of justice.’’.

14 SEC. 305. FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

15 (a) APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES TO CERTAIN JU16 VENILE DEFENDANTS.—Section 994(h) of title 28, United

17 States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, or in which the

18 defendant is a juvenile who is tried as an adult,’’ after

19 ‘‘old or older’’.

20 (b) GUIDELINES FOR JUVENILE CASES.—Section

21 994 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding

22 at the end the following:

23 ‘‘(z) GUIDELINES FOR JUVENILE CASES.—Not later

24 than May 1, 2006, the Commission, pursuant to its rules

25 and regulations and consistent with all pertinent proviVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:35 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

1279B.ACM
171 

65

H.L.C.

1 sions of any Federal statute, shall promulgate and dis2 tribute, to all courts of the United States and to the

3 United States Probation System, guidelines, as described

4 in this section, for use by a sentencing court in deter5 mining the sentence to be imposed in a criminal case if

6 the defendant committed the offense as a juvenile, and is

7 tried as an adult pursuant to section 5032 of title 18.’’.


1279B.ACN
172 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the gentleman from California, 

Mr. Schiff, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the Ranking 

Member and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for allowing me to take this up as the first amendment on the Democratic 

side of the aisle. 

Since my days as a prosecutor in California, I’ve been concerned 

with the growing threat posed by organized street gangs. I’ve also 

seen the destructive impact that street gangs continue to have on 

families, on our youth, and our communities. Unfortunately, gangs 

have strong links to youth in our country, taking a heavy toll on 

adolescent social development and life course experiences. An end 

result often is the continued involvement of criminal activity 

throughout life. 

For this reason, a couple months ago I introduced a bipartisan 

gang bill along with Representative Mary Bono, the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005. Our legislation represents a comprehensive effort to increase gang prosecution and 

prevention efforts. The bill is virtually identical to the bipartisan 

legislation that was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 108th Congress and has since been reintroduced by 

Senators Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Cornyn, and Grassley. 

The gang problem is no longer a local issue but a national one 

requiring a national strategy. The Schiff-Bono bill is designed to facilitate this effort by bringing together Federal, State, and local law 

enforcement, providing them with new tools to combat gang violence, making available new funds to keep kids out of gangs to 

begin with. Street gangs are increasingly focusing on running fullservice criminal enterprises in the neighborhoods where they reside, terrorizing those who live in the community. Some have 

shown increasing levels of sophistication, exhibiting characteristics 

common to organized crime, and will likely continue to expand 

their criminal enterprises in new ways and places throughout the 

country. 

This requires new and creative ways to attack the problem. In 

2002, in the city of Los Angeles, it was announced that street 

gangs would be prosecuted in the same way that law enforcement 

brought down traditional organized crime figures using the Federal 

racketeering statute, RICO, to its full capacity. However, these 

racketeering laws were designed to prosecute organized crime with 

Mafia-style organizations in mind. The Schiff-Bono bill represented 

by this substitute would create a similar tool, but tailored specifically to violent street gangs by criminalizing violent crimes in furtherance of or in aid of criminal street gangs. 

The most lucrative criminal enterprise for street gangs has been 

the retail distribution of illicit narcotics. Our legislation would attack this problem by making murder and other violent crimes committed in connection with drug trafficking a Federal crime. And, 

unfortunately, gangs also have strong links to the youth in our 

country. The FBI has reported increasing numbers of youth involvement in gangs and the problem is getting worse. 

In order to effectively prosecute an entire gang, it is sometimes 

necessary to prosecute multiple defendants in the same case, including juvenile gang members. The Schiff-Bono bill in this substitute provides a limited reform of the juvenile justice system to 

173 

facilitate Federal prosecution of 16- and 17-year-old gang members 

who commit serious acts of violence. However, this substitute, unlike the other substitute, provides an important reverse waiver procedure whereby juvenile—the juvenile can petition the court for 

transfer back to juvenile status by establishing by a preponderance 

of the evidence that this is in the interest of justice. So our substitute would also allow the filing against 16- and 17-year-old gang 

members who commit serious violent crimes, but it does allow the 

court to have some role in a reverse waiver procedure. 

Our legislation also provides resources to bolster the fight 

against gangs and to attack the problem at its roots. My substitute, 

unlike the now-base bill, authorizes $650 million over the next 5 

years to support Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts 

against violent gangs, including the funding of witness protection 

programs. But also unlike the base bill, it specifically provides 

funding for intervention and prevention programs for at-risk youth. 

The bill also increases funding for Federal prosecutors and FBI 

agents to increase coordinated enforcement efforts against violent 

gangs. 

Finally, the Schiff-Bono bill represented in this substitute does 

not include the broad changes that are unrelated to the purpose of 

gang prevention and prosecution, and, namely, our bill does not include the 22 mandatory minimum provisions within now the base 

bill. 

While I strongly believe that Congress should closely examine 

the issue of sentencing in light of the Booker decision, I do not believe we should respond to the Supreme Court decision in a piecemeal fashion such as we find in the base bill. 

On a final note, Mr. Chairman, regarding the process, for my 

Democratic colleagues I recognize there are parts of what’s in my 

substitute that you may not be comfortable with. I ask you to support a vote to make this the base bill because it is better than the 

current base bill, and it still gives you the flexibility to vote against 

my bill on final passage out of the Committee. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, may I have an additional 30 seconds? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I just wanted to make one entreaty to my colleagues 

on the other side of the aisle, and that is, this bill has bipartisan 

support in the Senate, this substitute. It has bipartisan support 

here in the House. And I would urge you to support the bill as authored by Senators Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Cornyn, and others, 

which is represented in my substitute. The choice, I think, for the 

majority in this Committee is between a bill that has already 

earned bipartisan support in the Senate and in the House or a bill 

that is to this point limited to partisan support. And I would urge 

your support for the bipartisan work product of both Houses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

174 

Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject this substitute, and let me 

tell you why. The choice that we really have here is between 

whether or not we want to go after the lower-tier criminals in these 

criminal crime networks or whether we want to go into the crime 

network itself and rip that network out. 

If you look at this chart that I’ve got up here, as I mentioned to 

you, we’ve got approximately 750,000 to 850,000 criminal gang 

members in the United States. Just pull one of those gangs out. 

MS–13, this represents the States that MS–13 is in, which is probably the most vicious, fast-growing gang in the country. And you 

can see how widespread they are in nature. 

Tinisha, if you would put that second chart up, the second chart 

that we have here shows one gang member and his travels across 

the country. Now, we didn’t sit down with other Members of Congress particularly and talk about how we’d solve this problem. 

What we did is talk to the ATF, talk to the FBI, talk to the police 

around the country, and talk to people who are trying to break up 

these criminal gang networks. And what they’ve told us is this: 

that they understand the system. And in Mr. Schiff’s bill, what he 

does is he doesn’t get at the 16- and 17-year-olds, but one of the 

things that we are told is that these gangs understand how to work 

the system. So we’ll have people in L.A. that are allowing the 

crimes to be done in Virginia and other places, and they know if 

they use the 16- and 17-year-olds, they’re not going to get tough 

penalties. They’re not going to get tough crimes. And one of the 

things that they’re telling us, if we don’t have the mandatory penalties—and I, too, agree sometimes that I don’t like mandatory penalties, but the importance of the mandatory penalties here is that 

only when the prosecutors can get into these individuals and say 

you’re going to go to jail for X number of years, this is a mandatory 

penalty, do they find that they’re willing to help break those networks up. 

And when we talk about prevention programs, I’m very supportive of many of the prevention programs that Mr. Schiff has 

talked about. I can show you how many dollars we’re spending in 

prevention programs. That’s not what this bill is doing. What this 

bill is doing is laying in on breaking up those networks, and I’ll tell 

you that the strongest prevention program we have is breaking 

down the criminal networks which are recruiting these young people and recruiting more and more people to violent crimes. 

If you look at MS–13 alone, they didn’t start out as a vicious, 

tough gang. They started out in the 1980’s because they had to 

form because our good intentions led us to not dealing with the 

gang problem that we had in some areas of the country, particularly in L.A. and some other places, and they had to form for protecting themselves. And all of our studies and all the people in the 

street suggest that the best prevention program we’ll have is to 

reach up and pull these networks out and strip the networks out. 

This bill goes to the networks. It doesn’t wait until they’ve committed the crimes and continuing to punish the crimes and have 

a revolving door where they’re back on the street and we’re punishing them over and over again. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject this substitute and keep 

with the base bill. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman? 

175 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we’ve been put in quite a quandary 

here. We’ve got a bill 3 weeks old that has come up—at most, 

maybe less—with one hearing, and today we have a substitute by 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, which contains not as 

many mandatory minimums, and—but not too few. They have way 

too many. It’s all going in the wrong direction. 

And we’re talking about, I presume, a multi-billion-dollar that’s 

coasting on the strength of one hearing, plus a substitute. So this 

leaves us to discuss again the fact that the studies, as has been 

pointed out by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, mandatory 

minimums have always shown to be ineffective in preventing 

crime. 

Now, I don’t know what the problem is here that we just keep 

going the same way over and over again and getting essentially the 

same result. And so I’d like to just put in for the record the statements—and I just happen to have been at the American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco when Justice Kennedy made his 

dramatic about-face on mandatory sentencing. And I’d like unanimous consent to put that in the record. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

176 


ray.001
177 


ray.002
178 


ray.003
179 


ray.004
180 


ray.005
181 


ray.006
182 


ray.007
183 


ray.008
184 


ray.009
185 


ray.010
186 

Mr. CONYERS. And so I’d like the Members of the Committee to 

consider this course of action. How about let’s voting all of these 

bills down? Both substitutes are unacceptable. Let’s get rid of them 

both and let’s have a series of hearings that deal more rationally 

with this subject matter. 

I’d yield to the gentlelady from California, if she needs any of 

this time. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do need time, 

Mc. Conyers, to ask the Members of this Committee to vote against 

this substitute, as well as when we get to the bill, to vote against 

the bill. I think that both of these bills are going in the wrong direction. 

It is interesting that Members who sit here in their suit and ties 

talking about gangs, gang members and neighborhood and cities 

and where they operate, really don’t know very much about what 

is really happening with these gangs. 

I would invite this Committee, if they dare—Members of this 

Committee go to Iran, they go to Afghanistan, they go all over the 

world. But I would invite you to come to South Los Angeles to deal 

with this gang issue. I would invite you to come because many of 

the Members of Congress have been playing politics with issue for 

far too long. I know it makes some Members look very, very good, 

and they enhance their law and order credentials by talking about 

getting rid of gangs in America. However, those of us who have 

been suffering with this problem for a long time have not really 

gotten any real serious attention from the Congress of the United 

States dealing with gangs. 

I appreciate that the President of the United States has appointed his wife to deal with the gang issue, and I’m looking forward to her coming to South Los Angeles or somebody coming to 

South Los Angeles, where there’s a proliferation of gangs, because 

this is a serious problem. It’s a serious problem that does not appear to have the real understanding of public policymakers who 

should be formulating good public policy, yes, to get rid of dangerous people on the streets, whether they’re gang members or not, 

I support that. And there are some folks who need to be in prison. 

I support that. But then there are children who live in communities that are gang-infested, who are not members of gangs, but 

they——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman from 

Michigan has expired. 

The question——

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, on my own time, I request 5 minutes to——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Anybody on the Republican side 

seek recognition? The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the Chairman for yielding, and I would 

just like to respond quickly to my good friend from South Central 

Los Angeles, and I would like to remind her that this Member was 

born and raised in that area. I lived through the Watts riots in 

1965 when the gentlelady was living in St. Louis, and I have very 

close ties to that area, spend a great deal of time there, and I can 

tell you that I can’t understand for the life of me, when I know that 

you care about your constituents, the only way those young people 

187 

that you’re talking about will ever be protected from the scourge 

of the gangs that are going on down there is for us to take tough 

action like Mr. Forbes is advocating to protect the innocent ones 

that are living and surrounded by the gangs. 

I would yield back. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yield back? Does 

the gentleman from California yield back? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes, I do yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. Before I continue with my 

perspective on this, I would like to say to the gentleman who just 

addressed me, again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I 

was in South Los Angeles in 1965. I was not in St. Louis. And it’s 

not about whether or not you were born or raised there. It’s about 

what you know about what is or is not taking place with those 

gangs in South Los Angeles. 

So, again, let me just say that there are a lot of young people 

who live in areas, who live in communities, who are not gang members but who must identify in some ways because of where they 

live. And these young people are about to be caught up in public 

policy as we design it here that’s going to send them to prison, 

that’s going to get them involved with the criminal justice system, 

even though the don’t deserve it. And this kind of legislation does 

not recognize the difference between hard-core gang members and 

innocent young people who live in these neighborhoods. 

Secondly, let me say this: I do not support mandatory minimum 

sentencing under any conditions or the enhancement of mandatory 

minimum sentences as is done in the substitute amendment. Nor 

do I support the idea that in order to even talk about prevention 

that somehow you have got to come up with these draconian laws, 

again, that’s going to harm what I consider some young people who 

need but some attention, some investment by this country in their 

possibility. 

We have a lot of young people who would like to stay in school, 

who would like to have a job, who would like to have some job 

training. Nowhere do I see a real commitment to dealing with 

young people, some of whom by no fault of their own are victims 

of a system and victims of a situation where maybe their parents 

were involved with drugs, who are in prison, who are dead, and 

grandmothers who are trying to raise these children without any 

real assistance. We need job training programs with stipends to 

support these young people while they’re in job training. We need 

to have after-school programs where these young people can go who 

need to be able to prepare their clothing to go to school the next 

morning, who will have some food, some tutorial assistance. We 

need a real effort, a sincere effort by Democrats and Republicans 

alike, if we are going to deal with the gang problems of America. 

And you’re absolutely right, while I’m sitting here begging you, 

literally begging you to come to South Los Angeles—and I know 

you’re not going to do it because I question the sincerity of those 

who say they want to deal with this issue. Again, I’m going to say 

it one more time. You can get on planes and you can go all over 

the world, but you can’t come to South Los Angeles or other areas 

188 

that are gang-infested to give some sincere attention to this issue 

and stop playing politics with it. 

I’m against this bill, and I resent even my colleague on this side 

of the aisle talking about this great bipartisan bill. There’s no great 

bipartisan over here. I don’t support this bill because, again, you’re 

simply trying to talk about what you’re going to do with law enforcement. Law enforcement has a long way to go to deal with this 

mess. If they had ever wanted to really break up gangs, they would 

have, number one, recruited and trained young people to get involved with law enforcement so that there could be some undercover work to identify who the real problems are in the communities. But they haven’t done that. All that you have, every year 

or so, is someone who comes and runs a campaign on the backs of 

so-called gang members, scaring the heck out of folks that somehow 

they’re going to save them. 

The police, the criminal justice system who have not done the 

work that is necessary to get in there and find out who the real 

perpetrators are, the lack of resources for young people who want 

a way out, who are desperate for some assistance, really has not 

been done. And as Mr. Scott identified, it is shameful the amount 

of dollars that we claim that we have spent toward a bill that 

started out for $500 million and ended up with $55 million. 

We should reject this substitute and the base bill because it does 

not deal with the problem, stop and have some hearings, spend 

some time going across this country, come to South Los Angeles, 

go to Virginia——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time——

Ms. WATERS.—wherever we need to go——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER.—has expired. The Chair recognizes 

himself. 

I think it’s about time to break for lunch. Let me say two things. 

First of all, there has been an agreement that has been reached 

on the counterfeiting bill, which means, I think, that that bill can 

go through with relatively little debate. And when we come back 

after lunch, it is the Chair’s intention to ask unanimous consent to 

bring that bill up out of order so that we can dispose of that and 

get it moving along. 

Secondly, it does—I have been informed by the floor that there 

will be some votes at approximately 1:30. I would ask all of the 

Members to return to this markup as soon as they can after the 

conclusion of the votes at 1:30. And I’d like to start the markup 

within about 10 minutes after the conclusion of the last vote at 

1:30 p.m. 

The Committee stands recessed until after the last vote in the series at 1:30. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57, the Committee was recessed, to reconvene 

this same day.] 

AFTERNOON SESSION [2:34 p.m.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. A 

working quorum is present. 

Pending when the Committee recessed was a motion to report 

the bill H.R. 1279 favorably. There was an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes, and the pending question was another amendment in the 

189 

nature of a substitute to the amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff. 

Without objection, the Committee will consider the bill H.R. 32, 

and we will get back to the other bill after completion of H.R. 32. 

Hearing none, so ordered. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Now, we will go back to H.R. 1279. 

When the Committee recessed for lunch, pending was a motion to 

report the bill H.R. 1279, the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and Community 

Protection Act,’’ favorably to the full House. Pending was an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman from 

Virginia, Mr. Forbes, and pending to that was another amendment 

in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Schiff. And the question is on agreeing to the Schiff amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to the Forbes amendment in the nature 

of a substitute. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions to ask to 

the sponsor of this amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

First of all, I would ask if you—that this amendment has a reverse waiver, but does it not try more juveniles as adults? 

Mr. SCHIFF. If the gentleman will yield, the substitute to the substitute does allow for the prosecutor to file against 16- and 17-yearolds who have committed serious violent offenses where it’s necessary to have a multi-defendant criminal prosecution. However, 

unlike the base bill, it allows for a reverse waiver where after the 

prosecutor files the initial petition to have the juvenile treated in 

the Federal court system, the judge has the ability, upon proof by 

a preponderance of the evidence by the juvenile’s counsel, to reverse the waiver. So there is a safety valve in that the unilateral 

action of the prosecutor alone is not sufficient to get the juvenile 

into Federal court. 

When Mr. Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney, testified in the Subcommittee on this issue, he mentioned this is something that will 

be very seldom used. There will be seldom a reason to bring juveniles in the Federal court system. I think that’s a very wise policy. 

We don’t want to open a floodgate. But I think because prosecutors 

are very likely to only use this in extraordinary cases, the judges 

will uphold that decision——

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time——

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, I guess we can question whether 

to try more juveniles as adults than we presently do is good policy. 

I think we can debate that. I think the evidence is clear. 

Another question. Does this amendment in the nature of a substitute, the amendment, your amendment, include additional death 

penalties than we have now? 

Mr. SCHIFF. It includes additional death penalties to those that 

are in existing law. I think it has an equivalent number, only a 

slight variation from my colleague’s base bill. 

190 

Mr. SCOTT. And I would ask on mandatory minimums, in your 

opening statement you said you eliminated some of the mandatory 

minimums. Do you not increase some mandatory minimums? 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. What I said was that we, I think, modify one 

of the mandatory minimums. We don’t add new mandatory minimums, and that distinguished it from the base bill, which has, I 

think, 22 new mandatory minimums. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does ‘‘modify’’ mean increase? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I think one of the mandatory minimums is increased 

in the length of the mandatory minimum, but I don’t believe we 

have added a new mandatory minimum. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Thank you. I think one of the mandatory minimums in your amendment increases the mandatory minimum for 

gun crimes, I believe. 

Mr. Chairman, one thing this amendment has is some prevention 

authorization, but, unfortunately, insofar as we haven’t fully funded the present authorization, any new authorization, I obviously 

would reflect an empty promise. The underlying bill and the 

amendment suggest that the criminal code is insufficient to deal 

with violent crime. I’ve talked to many law enforcement officers, 

and none have indicated that they don’t know what to do with 

crooks they catch who have committed kidnapping, murder for hire, 

or other violent crimes. Present laws are sufficient. As a matter of 

fact, the criminal justice system is working all too well. The United 

States today has more people in jail per 100,000 population than 

any country on Earth. And in our inner cities, the rate is off the 

chart. 

I would hope that we would defeat the underlying bill, defeat 

this amendment, and get back to what we know works, and that 

is an intensive effort for prevention and early intervention for those 

who are likely to get involved in gangs and rely on our present 

criminal justice system to continue arresting, prosecuting, and 

jailing those who are committing violent crimes. 

I yield back. 

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from South Carolina, 

Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. INGLIS. Reluctantly, I’m opposed to the substitute of the substitute, the substitute and the underlying bill. I think there are 

several problems. 

One: We continue this pattern of federalizing State crimes. We 

need to think about that. Two: Mandatory minimums, I’m more 

and more uncomfortable with them. I voted for mandatory minimums a number of times on my tenure here on Judiciary Committee in the ’93 through ’98 time period, but I think we need to 

rethink those, and they’re leading us to the wrong places I believe. 

Third: I’m concerned about setting up programs that frankly we all 

know will establish constituencies that will tell us, henceforth that 

you cannot eliminate them. So the substitute to the substitute would establish a $650 million 

program which is a lot of money. The substitute would establish a 

$50 million program. The way things are in Washington, programs 

191 

grow like kudzu, and the result will be that that will turn into an 

indispensable program in the years to come, and Members of Congress will be lobbied by various people saying: You can’t, whatever 

you do, Congresswoman or Congressman, eliminate this program. 

And the result will be it will never die. And before we establish 

new programs like that I think we need to think long and hard 

about whether is this the most effective way to deal with this problem? 

I’m happy to yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the——

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WEXLER. Yield to Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank my colleague for yielding. 

And I just want to take this opportunity to address some of the 

comments and criticisms that have been raised vis-a-vis the substitute to the substitute, which I’ll refer to as the Schiff-Bono bill. 

First the objection is made by my colleague, author of the substitute proposal, that the Schiff-Bono proposal doesn’t deal with the 

travel of the MS–13 gang, doesn’t deal with 16- and 17-year-olds, 

doesn’t provide a sufficient deterrent to people to commit gang activity. I don’t think any of those objections are well founded. 

Of course it does deal with the issue of gangs being national by 

establishing a criminal enterprise like RICO to go after gangs. 

That was the whole point of the bill. It does allow prosecutors to 

bring in 16- and 17-year-olds. It does have the overwhelming support of law enforcement, and I have a list of about 30 law enforcement groups that all supported this bill in the Senate last year. 

So both bills really seek to accomplish the same goal vis-a-vis 

strengthening the prosecution of gang crime, vis-a-vis some of the 

criticisms on my side of the aisle, in particular, that some of us 

don’t know the gang problem South Central. The reality is that the 

gang problem is everywhere now. The gang problem is in my district in Glendale, and in Pasadena, in Monterey Park, in Alhambra. 

It cuts across all ethnicities and all income levels. This is not a 

problem that is confined to any one district or any one ethnicity. 

It’s unfortunately very widespread throughout the country. 

Second, regarding the issue of trying juveniles in the Federal system or trying them as adults, this is a very legitimate and difficult 

issue. We often focus on the effect on the juvenile prosecuting them 

in adult court or confining them in adult facility, and there are 

some legitimate concerns there, but we often don’t focus on the opposite problem, and that is confining the very serious, violent juvenile offenders with the much less serious juvenile offenders who 

are then exposed to predatory juveniles, and that is a problem as 

well. In addition, when you treat a juvenile as a juvenile and the 

juvenile reaches a certain age, the court no longer has jurisdiction 

over them, cannot even supervise them through parole or probation 

because they have left the jurisdiction of the court. And to allow 

juveniles who commit very serious, violent offense to go without suVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:35 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074
192 

pervision once they’re released is problematic. So not an easy issue 

either way. 

So what then are the cardinal differences between the bipartisan 

bill that I’m offering that’s been introduced in the House, the bipartisan bill in the Senate, the Feinstein-Hatch bill, and what has become the base bill? There are basically four or five differences and 

some similarities. First of all, the main similarity is we both have 

basically a RICO-like provision in our bills to use this new apparatus to go after criminal street gangs. 

Second, we both allow very selectively the inclusion of juveniles, 

the difference being that in my bill we give the court some say into 

particular cases to bring juveniles in, in the base bill there is no 

say of the court whatsoever, it’s purely prosecutorial discretion. 

Third, both bills increase sentencing. The primary difference is 

that my colleague’s base bill provides 22 mandatory minimums, our 

base bill increase sentences without increasing the number of mandatory minimums. I think the issue of mandatory minimums raised 

by the Booker decision must be addressed systematically and not 

piecemeal in this bill. 

Third—and this is one of the most significant differences between 

the base bill and my substitute—and that is the preventive funding 

that was approved on a bipartisan basis in the Senate. Why is this 

so important? Because the punishment, the deterrence is only one 

part of the equation. We need to provide an equal effort of prevention. Only the two combined will be successful. When my colleague 

says this bill is not about prevention programs, he’s right, and 

that’s the flaw with the base building—with the base bill. It has 

to be about both suppression of crime and prevention of crime. 

And finally, what is the difference between the two bills? One 

has bipartisan support in the Senate and can get through the Senate, the other has—and also has bipartisan support and was introduced in a bipartisan way before this base bill was even introduced 

in the House. The other has no bipartisan support and is a partisan vehicle on what should be a bipartisan solution. 

Those are in sum the differences between the bills, and once 

again I’d urge my colleagues’ support for the substitute, and I 

would be happy to yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. And I’ll yield briefly to the gentleman 

from Virginia. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, earlier 

today we had the word ‘‘insincerity’’ brought out when we were 

talking about these bills, and I just disagree with that. I think all 

the parties are sincere in what they’re trying to do. The reality is 

that we look at the ferociousness and the viciousness of these 

gangs and their growing nature across the country, and really we 

have three approaches to it. There are some who feel that we don’t 

need any other laws, that law enforcement in some manner or the 

other just isn’t doing what they need to be doing, whether they 

193 

need more resources or they just won’t get out there and do it, we 

don’t need any additional laws to tackle the gang problem. 

There are some people who think my bill is too tough and they 

want a softer bill, thinking that they can go after these gangs. The 

reality is you just can’t. You will punish the crimes after they have 

taken place, but you will do nothing to bring down the crime networks. The prosecutors who come into us met with the ATF, the 

FBI, the prosecutors, Fraternal Order of Police. What we have got 

to do is we’ve got to be able to bring down the networks, and the 

only way we do that is with tough mandatory penalties, where we 

go in and we look at someone who has committed these crimes and 

say, ‘‘If you don’t cooperate and help bring down the network, 

you’re going to go to jail for a long time.’’ And I also want to make something clear too. We talk about all 

the people that are innocently getting caught up in these gangs. 

We need to be thinking about protection for those people who don’t 

get caught up in the gangs but are caught up in the gang violence. 

Michelle Garst came in here supporting this bill, who had moved 

from Philadelphia because the gangs were tormenting them in the 

area they live there. She moved to Maryland with her 9 children, 

put them in charter schools, thinking she was escaping the gangs. 

Her husband was murdered by a gang member. Why? Just for initiation into a gang. And if you ask her do we need a softer bill, 

Michelle Garst will tell you no, we need a tough bill to bring down 

these criminal networks, and this will do it. 

The final thing I’ll tell you, the best prevention program we can 

have is to get rid of these gangs themselves because that’s what’s 

driving kids in by fear and intimidation. If you go into a doctor’s 

office and you tell him you’ve got cancer, you don’t want him to 

spend 30 minutes telling you how you could have prevented getting 

that cancer, you don’t want him to spend 30 minutes telling you 

how your family can not get that cancer. What you want him to 

do then is laser in and get that cancer out of your body, and then 

you can deal with prevention programs. This bill does that. It lasers in and pulls out those crime networks. If you don’t want to get 

the crime networks, if you just want to get the victims after they 

have already become victims, deal with a softer bill. I hope we’ll 

reject the amendment and support the base bill, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Reclaiming time, I yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I haven’t 

expressed myself on this bill yet, and I’m going to be very brief. I 

don’t like the bill. I think the Schiff amendment is better than the 

bill, but I don’t like it either, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

And I want to make it clear that I haven’t questioned the sincerity 

of anybody. Maybe somebody else did. I haven’t questioned the sincerity or the motives. I have questioned the provisions of the bill. 

The question’s been raised whether somebody’s being tough or 

somebody’s being soft. I have said that I support initiatives that reduce crime. We know by every study that trying more juveniles as 

194 

adults increases crime, so when you describe all of these bad 

crimes, you can assume that there will be more of them because 

when you try more juveniles as adults not only do you increase 

crime, you increase violent crime in particular. 

If somebody’s going to be tough on crime, you ought to support 

the initiatives that reduce the incidence of crime and the incidence 

of violent crime, and you can call it soft or tough, but we’re talking 

about increasing crime or decreasing crime, and the mandatory 

minimums in the bill have been described by the Judicial Conference as violating common sense. And how is that being tough, 

violating common sense and increasing crime? So we have to be 

careful how we use these adjectives like you’re being soft or you’re 

being tough. We’re trying to—some of us are trying to reduce 

crime, and the provisions of the bill, by every study that’s been 

done, will increase the crime rate, and that’s why we’re opposing 

it, not because we’re trying to be either soft or tough. 

I yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. And I agree with Mr. Scott and I yield back. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yeah. I’m just going to—I think we make a mistake if we start to characterize what we’re all trying to accomplish 

as tough or as soft. That doesn’t I think contribute to the debate. 

I believe that every Member of the Committee wants to do something about reducing gang violence, youth violence, and the incidence of violent crime in this country. The question ought to be 

framed in terms of what works, what’s effective, what’s going to do 

that? I believe in prevention. I believe in treatment, I believe in 

laws that exist, that when necessary to incarcerate an individual, 

for however long it takes. 

And what the gentleman is referring to when he talks about ripping these networks apart, I agree. I’m sure Mr. Schiff agrees. I 

think everybody on the Committee agrees. But what I would suggest is that the laws that are utilized by prosecutors to rip apart 

those networks already exist. There is the CCE, there is the RICO 

statute. There are conspiracy statutes. What I would suggest is 

that if the resources that are unavailable to law enforcement, that, 

yes, we provide law enforcement with the resources to do their job, 

which is to investigate and prosecute crime, and to rip those networks apart. 

I just don’t understand, Mr. Forbes, why your bill, as opposed to 

the Schiff bill, does a better job of ripping apart networks. 

Mr. FORBES. Will the gentleman yield so I can tell you? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course. 

Mr. FORBES. The basic thing that we’re hearing from prosecutors 

and those people who are trying to rip these networks apart out in 

the field is this. First of all, the gangs today that we’re talking 

about are not local gangs, they’re national gangs, and they have activities across the country. And many times you need a broader 

network if you’re going to be able to bring them in. It’s not activity 

in just one State. They’re all telling us—— Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me just reclaim my time, because let me respond to that. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. 

195 

Mr. DELAHUNT. We have the ability to do that now. We work— we have joint task forces between local, State and Federal investigative agencies all over this country. What does your bill do to enhance that? 

Mr. FORBES. If you’ll let me respond I’ll be glad to tell you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Sure. 

Mr. FORBES. What they’re telling us is that when they bring 

these people in, the gang members know how to work the system 

now, the leaders, and so they’re not actually committing the crimes 

many times. What they’re doing is sending lower tier people in the 

crime networks out to commit the crime. When they capture them 

in doing it and they bring them in, the prosecutors say that in 

many instances they’re looking at them and they realize that it’s 

a flip of the dice when they go in for trial as to whether or not 

they’re going to get a year or 2 years or even 3 years, and they’re 

telling us that they are not going to help and cooperate because, 

as you know, the gang members are sitting there telling them, and 

threatening and intimidating them, as just being witnesses. 

The prosecutors tell us, however, when they have the tough and 

the hard mandatory sentences, they can walk in and look at those 

individuals, and they will give up the networks. And then they can 

put them in witness protection. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, I’ve 

heard that argument over and over and over again. I was a prosecutor for 22 years, a good prosecutor. If he or she wishes to develop and informant or wishes to develop a cooperating witness can 

do it. I don’t know what prosecutors you’re talking to, okay, but I 

know my own experience and experience of people that are prominent in law enforcement will tell you that there are many ways to 

achieve the development of a cooperating witness, and please do 

not overstate the sophistication of these national gangs. I can assure you most juvenile offenders, most gang members do not carry 

with them a copy of the United States Criminal Code. They simply 

don’t do that. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I move to strike the last word, and I would yield 

to the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. 

I just want to respond again to a couple of comments made by 

my colleague from Massachusetts and my colleague from Virginia. 

How does the base bill differ from the substitute in terms of the 

ability to go after crime networks? It doesn’t really. Both bills are 

designed exactly to go after these national and indeed now international crime networks. They both use the same prosecutorial tool 

in establishing a new RICO-like statute for criminal street gangs. 

That’s the heart of the bill. 

What are the differences? I’ve gone through some of them, but 

it seems like my colleague is very fixated on one in particular, and 

that is mandatory minimums, which bill has got more mandatory 

196 

minimums, as if that’s the linchpin for any success in dealing with 

gangs, and that’s simply not the case. 

This bill is not new. It wasn’t, it wasn’t born a month ago when 

my colleague introduced it, or 2 months ago when I introduced the 

Schiff-Bono bill. This bill was introduced in the Senate over a year 

ago, and it had none of the mandatory minimums my colleague is 

arguing for. It had the support of over 30 law enforcement organizations. My colleague says his base bill is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police. They endorsed my bill before they even endorsed my colleague’s bill. Plainly, both approaches have law enforcement support. 

Now, I realize that Booker has changed the equation to some degree, but nonetheless, with the enhanced sentencing capability in 

the substitute prosecutors have a great deal of bargaining authority over gang members and defendants and potential defendants, so 

they both accomplish the same objective. 

And I would just urge my colleague to be a little circumspect in 

his attacks on the substitute. My guess is the bill that comes back 

from the Senate is going to look a lot more like this substitute than 

the base bill, and you’ll probably support it. So let’s not demean too 

much the work product because it probably will look a lot like what 

I’m advocating. 

In any event, one of the last items I’d like to emphasize is something in Pat Fitzgerald’s testimony before the Subcommittee on 

this bill. He talked about the success that his office had had in 

keeping kids out of trouble, and the tremendous decline in violence, 

gang violence that they had been able to achieve. And what he attributed that to was the proactive work of his office, and the base 

bill cuts the funding for that proactive work. It cuts the funding for 

the Project Safe Neighborhoods, which the National District Attorneys Association testified we should retain. And so some of the——

Mr. FORBES. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes. 

Mr. FORBES. Can the gentleman show me in the bill where it 

cuts funding to any other program? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I’d be delighted. If you’re asking me how does it cut 

existing funding, what I’m referring to is what it cuts out of the 

Senate bipartisan bill. 

Mr. FORBES. No, but this bill doesn’t do anything to cut any existing programs, as you just stated. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I’ll have to get back to the gentleman on that 

to find out whether it goes beyond cutting the amounts out of the 

Senate bill——

Mr. FORBES. Can the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I don’t have much time left. I’m sure one of your colleagues would be happy to yield to you. 

But the fact of the matter is that of the 650 million that is in 

the bill to be divided in the substitute equally between prevention 

programs by community based organizations and law enforcement, 

your base bill I think only has 50 million, and it is devoted to the 

law enforcement side. And this is, you know, one of the principal 

differences. I think a balanced bill has to have increased deterrence 

and increased prevention. I think both are necessary. Either alone 

is inadequate, and that I think is the heart and soul of the difVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:35 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074
197 

ference between the two bills. That’s what I think makes the substitute a better bill, and I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the Schiff amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Forbes amendment in the 

nature of a substitute. Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The noes appear to have it. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I’d request a recorded vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A recorded vote is requested. Those 

in favor of the Schiff substitute to the Forbes substitute will as 

your names are called answer aye, those opposed, no, and the clerk 

will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Green? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert? 

198 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, no. Mr. Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Members in the chamber who wish 

to cast or changes their votes? Gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Alabaman, Mr. 

Bachus? 

Mr. BACHUS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their vote? Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. 

199 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Green? 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 3 ayes and 22 noes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute is not agreed to. 

Mr. SCOTT. Before you announce the vote—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The vote has been announced. 

Mr. SCOTT. [Inaudible.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I said the amendment was not 

agreed to. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. We will now resume consideration of 

H.R. 1279. The current pending amendment is the Forbes amendment in the nature of a substitute. Are there any second degree 

amendments to the Forbes amendment in the nature of a——

Mr. CONYERS. I think I have one. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. I’ve got the Conyers-Van Hollen amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Conyers and Mr. Van 

Hollen. At the end of Title 1 add the following. Section 116—— Mr. CONYERS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the amendment is 

considered as read and the gentleman from Michigan is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 

200 H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1279

OFFERED BY MR. CONYERS AND

MR. VAN HOLLEN

At the end of title I, add the following:

1 SEC. 116. PREVENTING SUSPECTED GANG MEMBERS FROM

2 GAINING ACCESS TO DANGEROUS FIREARMS.

3 Section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, is

4 amended—

5 (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by inserting ‘‘, or

6 that the name of such other person appears in the

7 Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File main8 tained by the Attorney General’’ before the semi9 colon;

10 (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and if the

11 name of the prospective recipient does not appear in

12 the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File

13 maintained by the Attorney General,’’ after ‘‘State

14 law,’’;

15 (3) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘and that the

16 name of such other person does not appear in the

17 Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File main18 tained by the Attorney General,’’ after ‘‘State law,’’;

19 and


1279D.AAB
201 

2

H.L.C.

1 (4) in paragraph (5), by inserting ‘‘or that the

2 name of such other person appears in the Violent

3 Gang and Terrorist Organization File maintained by

4 the Attorney General,’’ after ‘‘State law,’’.


1279D.AAC
202 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to divide my 

time with the gentleman from Maryland. It’s a very straightforward amendment, closing a loophole that exists in our Federal 

gun laws by making it illegal—here’s what the amendment does, 

make it illegal to transfer a firearm to anyone that the Federal 

Government has designated as a suspected or known gang member 

or terrorist. This may sound amazing to you, but 56 firearm purchase attempts were made by people known to be terrorists or suspected gang members, and 47 of them were forced—the sales were 

forced to proceed because under the present law only a prior felony 

conviction or a court determined finding of mental defect is the 

only way that anyone cannot be sold a weapon. 

And so what we’re doing is taking care of that problem, rather 

than dealing with after-the-fact penalties which are of little use 

after the victims have occurred. 

So this is very important, and I close with this one observation, 

that we have a very regulated list of gang members, so this isn’t 

just random—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I’m a little bit concerned about the 

due process questions involved here. People who have been convicted of a felony or adjudicated as mentally defective in a court 

are on the list of those who cannot purchase or possess firearms, 

and there there’s been a court determination that ends up giving 

them this type of disability. In your amendment, there is simply an 

administrative placing of a name on a list, and doesn’t that concern 

you that someone cannot get firearms simply because a bureaucrat 

has decided that question? 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I—this is a great day in America because 

your due process concerns appear to exceed mine, so this will go 

down—— [Laughter.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, I hope 

everybody in the room notes that fact, remembers it. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yeah. But I don’t know if it’s accurate. Here’s the 

problem, Mr. Chairman, and I’ll get additional time for my colleague from Maryland. We have, we have already lists, and of 

course we’re talking about the Administration that has gone over 

the top on violations of due process. I mean we can now arrest people, even American citizens, and make them enemy combatants 

on—not on the say of a court or due process or the Department of 

Justice, but the President of the United States, and I am convinced 

that our method of making sure that this is not exceeded allows me 

to do this. Besides, there is a provision that this can be appealed 

so that this isn’t, you know, for all time. 

So for those reasons I am very enthusiastic about getting not just 

the mental defective people, but there is a war on, you know, and 

we’ve got to deal with the terrorists and the known suspected gang 

members. And I yield to my colleague that’s worked with me, the 

gentleman from Maryland, MR. Van Hollen. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. I thank Mr. Conyers for his leadership on this issue. We’ve been talking in the Committee on a bipartisan basis here about the importance of cracking down on gang activities and the danger of gangs, and the danger they pose to people in our communities. This is a pretty common sense bill. It says 

203 

if you have been identified by the Federal Government as somebody who is a dangerous gang member, then if you walk into your 

local gun store, that you shouldn’t be able to immediately purchase 

a gun. 

Now, to get to the issues raised by the Chairman, there’s nothing 

to prevent somebody from going to the holders of this list, the list 

that shows, lists people as terrorists or gang members and say, 

‘‘My name shouldn’t be on this list.’’ So does it mean that someone 

can’t immediately get that gun? It would do so. And I would suggest the balance here should be in terms of—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman from 

Michigan has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the gentleman 

from Michigan will be given two more minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

So the balance here is in terms of sending somebody into a gun 

store who we know is identified as a dangerous gang member on 

a Federal list, and saying to them that you can’t get that gun immediately. Now, if they want to get their name removed from the 

list, they should do so, and we should make sure they understand 

how to do it. This came up in discussions with the Attorney General the other day. 

But let me just say, as you know, with respect to the no-fly list, 

when someone’s name is on the no-fly list it doesn’t mean they’ve 

been convicted or a crime. It means that they’ve been identified as 

someone who poses a potential danger to public safety, and it’s important to at least have the option of saying to that person, ‘‘We 

think that you should be denied access to the airplane.’’ You can 

then go about getting your name off the list, and again you should. 

But I see no reason to distinguish between someone who’s denied 

access to an airplane because they’re considered a public threat 

and letting that person get in their car, go to a local gun store and 

buy a bunch of semiautomatic assault weapons. It makes absolutely no sense. It’s totally inconsistent. This brings some consistency to the policy. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I hope we’ll reject this amendment. 

The—several points. First of all, your due process point is very, 

very well on in that the people that are placed on this list have absolutely no litigation that takes place prior to that time, no opportunity to present their case before they’re put on the list, and certainly it will be a due process violation. 

Secondly, if we think that most of these violent gang criminals 

are going in and buying their guns at gun stores, let me just suggest to you that’s not what a lot of the statistics say. They’re trading them for narcotics which they’re getting, and the way they get 

204 

the narcotics is by stealing cars and shipping cars out of the country in many instances. 

But the second thing, Mr. Chairman, is 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), as 

you know, makes it a crime for a convicted felon to have a gun. If 

you pass the underlying bill we won’t need this provision because 

we’re going to put these violent criminal gang members away for 

mandatory sentences that are going to put them out of commission 

for a long period of time. They won’t be going in and buying guns, 

and we don’t need this provision. 

I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. I understand and recognize the need for civility and how 

Members do not like anyone to question another Member’s motives 

or sincerity. And we’ve had a limited discussion about that today. 

However, for those of us who are desperate to do something 

about gang violence and gang warfare in these communities that 

are just overwhelmed now with the gang problem, we will not understand, we cannot understand how any Member of Congress who 

claims to be concerned about getting rid of violence and stopping 

other gangs from having access to weapons and guns could be opposed to this amendment. 

I would like to believe, I would sincerely like to believe that my 

friends on the opposite side of the aisle are concerned about due 

process rights. Everything that I have learned since I’ve been a 

Member of Congress leads me to conclude that many Members do 

not give a darn about due process rights, and I think you could not 

be any clearer than the Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers, in describing how due process rights have been violated in law as he described the enemy combatant situation that we have now that’s 

being exercised by this President and this Administration. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the maker of—the author of the legislation described how a father had been killed. Let me tell you, many 

innocent people are being killed. Children are being killed in driveby shootings. Family members are being killed who are guilty of 

nothing simply because they are related to another gang member. 

Where there is a gang warfare going on, the guns are flowing in 

these communities. I don’t know where they get them all from, and 

I don’t care where they get them from. I want them stopped. I want 

our communities rid of guns. We have everything from AK-47s to 

handguns. They buy them from people who sell them in the back 

of cars. They trade them. They get them from so-called legitimate 

gun dealers. 

If you are serious about doing something about violence, one of 

the things you must do is help get rid of the guns—the guns that 

are causing all of this terror in our communities. 

So I am considered a liberal. I’m considered that bad name that’s 

been demonized—a liberal, whose fight too often is about due process rights. You can’t due process rights more than I can. That’s 

what I do. I take care of people’s due process rights. So you’re not 

better than I, you’re not better than Mr. Conyers, you don’t care 

more than we do. We do this on a daily basis. So, please, don’t use 

due process as your concern now when we’re stepping on your precious area of guns. We want to get rid of the guns. 

205 

I support this amendment, and I think if we are not to question 

anybody’s sincerity, then I think folks have to step up to the plate 

and do what must be done despite the influence of the right wing 

or the people who protect the gun owners. If you want to do something about stopping America’s children from being killed, not only 

by gangs but in our schools and by terrorists who are entering this 

country by hook or crook, you cannot say that you are concerned 

about this violence, you want to stop gangs, that you want to stop 

the killing and the murdering and the slaughtering unless you’re 

willing to help identify—and even if you want to use the word ‘‘profile,’’ I don’t care. You’ve got to help us get rid of the gangs, and 

this is just one small attempt, one small way to get at getting rid 

of these guns. 

Now, if that—if you want to accuse me of questioning somebody’s 

sincerity, I stand accused. I put it there before you. It’s out. Either 

you’re going to support getting rid of guns and you’re going to allow 

us to take a look at this file that’s already being kept, the violent 

gang and terrorist organization file that’s already maintained by 

the Attorney General, the names are there. The names are there. 

We can identify the people. We don’t want them to buy guns. There 

is no legitimate excuse that you can give—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Ms. WATERS. Too bad. I had more to say. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what reason does the gentleman 

from Iowa, Mr. King, seek recognition? 

Mr. KING. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KING. I thank the Chairman with regard to his statement on 

the people who are denied access to firearms and without regard 

to the statements by the gentlelady from California, I would point 

out that everyone—everyone who has been denied a firearm, according to Federal statute, has had due process. And whether you 

can out-due process it or not, that is the fact of the law. And the 

fact of the Constitution is it’s a constitutional right to keep and 

bear arms. And if we’re going to deny access to those firearms, then 

we have to guarantee a due process. 

Senator Kennedy didn’t know that he was on the watchlist and 

was denied access to the plane at least three times and was allowed to board because someone knew him. We cannot ask people 

in this country to be checking the violent gang list and the terrorist 

organization file to determine if they can go to town and buy a gun. 

And so if we’re going to set up some kind of due process so that 

this endeavor on the part of this amendment is realized, then we 

need to let anyone and everyone know if they are on the terrorist 

organization list or the violent gang list, and we have to give them 

a due process to get themselves off the list before they find themselves without a gun. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment 

to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. Those in favor will say aye? 

Opposed, no? 

Mr. CONYERS. Record vote, sir. 

206 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, the noes do appear to have it, 

but all those in favor of the Conyers amendment to the Forbes substitute will as your names are called answer aye, those opposed, no, 

and the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Pass. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, pass. Mr. Lungren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus? 

Mr. BACHUS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Green? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

207 

Mr. NADLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, aye. Mr. Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Members who wish to cast or change 

their votes? The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their vote? If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 7 ayes and 18 noes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is not agreed 

to. 

Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 

number 5. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report amendment 

number 5. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1279, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. At the end 

208 

of the bill, add the following new section: Section 2, Study and report on evidence-based approaches proven to prevent crime—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. 

[The amendment follows:] 

209 H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1279

OFFERED BY MR. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA

At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

1 SEC. 2ll. STUDY AND REPORT ON EVIDENCE-BASED AP2 PROACHES PROVEN TO PREVENT CRIME.

3 The Director of the Office of Justice Programs shall

4 carry out a study of evidence-based approaches that have

5 been proven to prevent crime, including gang crime and

6 violent crime, by youth and adults. The Director shall sub7 mit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and

8 the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Rep9 resentatives a report on the study.


1279E.AAB
210 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the gentleman from Virginia is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment. It requires 

the Director of the Office of Justice Programs to carry out an evidence-based study, a study of evidence-based approaches that have 

been proven to prevent crime, including gang crime and violent 

crime by youth and adults, and let us know the results. 

Mr. Chairman, I think in the give and take in this bill, we have 

to be clear that some of us question whether or not the provisions 

of the bill will actually reduce crime. We’ve seen this kind of debate 

technique going on on other issues. We hear today, for example, 

you talk about gangs, then you present the bill. During the war in 

Iraq, you talk about 9/11, then you talk about the Iraqi war. Well, 

Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11. It doesn’t matter. It’s 

kind of inferred, and people go along with the war because you 

talked about 9/11 first. 

And with Social Security, you talk about the shortfall, then you 

talk about private accounts. Well, private accounts don’t have anything to do with the shortfall. Well, don’t worry about it. If you 

agree there’s a shortfall, you kind of get lulled into thinking you 

need some private accounts. 

What this amendment does is see whether or not talking about 

gangs, whether or not then talking about the bill makes any sense. 

The studies that have been presented to us have shown that the 

provisions of the bill will increase crime. And I fully expect that the 

study done by the Director of the Office of Justice Programs will 

remind us of what we already know. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is drafted to the bill 

and not to the Forbes amendment in the nature of a substitute. Is 

the intention of the gentleman from Virginia to have this amendment be to the Forbes substitute? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the first line of 

the amendment is modified to indicate that it adds language to the 

Forbes substitute. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I hope we’ll reject this amendment. 

First of all, my good friend and colleague from Virginia is not very 

supportive of our bill. I don’t think this was one of those complementary amendments. It basically is not a relevant amendment 

to this particular bill. 

If the Director of the Office of Justice Programs came back with 

a study, first of all, we’d argue what is evidence-based. I think my 

good friend would then say that that study was flawed and it was 

skewed and it was biased, and, you know, a number of things that 

might come back in. 

He has stated that all of these studies disprove the bill. I have 

similar actual factual documents and statistics that show that the 

underlying bill will help reduce crime and it will work. But this is 

a bill and this is a study which might be appropriate in some other 

bill, if he wants to do a study. But we don’t need it for this parVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:35 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00210 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074
211 

ticular gang bill. I hope we will reject this bill and move on with 

the base bill. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Oh, I know. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose do you seek recognition? 

Ms. WATERS. To irritate you. [Laughter.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, you don’t get recognized for 5 

minutes to do that. 

Ms. WATERS. No, that—to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. You do get recognized for 5 minutes 

for that purpose. 

Ms. WATERS. I’ll do that. Thank you very much. 

I simply would like to say to the gentleman who simply rejected 

my colleague’s amendment based on the fact that he may interpret 

it in ways that won’t help his legislation sometime down the line, 

I would ask him to show some sincere desire to cooperate with 

Members on this side of the aisle in addressing a very serious problem. 

It does not help to take an amendment such as this one, which 

is simply a study of evidence-based approaches, so that we can 

band together pertinent and factual information about what it 

takes to prevent crime. 

When you reject something as benign as this, you’re sending a 

message to us. You’re sending a signal that you do not wish to cooperate with us in any shape, form, or fashion. It is quite unfortunate that at a time when increasingly we have young people who 

are being killed in our schools and on our school yards, we have 

young people who have been killed with drive-by shootings, we 

have family members who are being killed simply because they 

happen to be a relative of a gang member, and we have young people killing each other about colors, about territories, that you would 

reject our efforts to be a part of fashioning public policy to get at 

these problems. 

It seems to me when we are desirous of meeting our colleagues 

halfway in addressing a real issue that confronts us all, we would 

have at least the generosity of spirit to embrace a bill that would 

ask for a study that would help us to make determinations about 

how to prevent crime. 

I am very sorry—and I know that what I say today will not influence you in any way—that you would still oppose this, and I suspect any other amendment that’s brought before you today by those 

of us, no matter how well that amendment may be put together, 

how well-meaning that amendment or how much good that amendment could do, that it’s going to be rejected because there is no intention by your or others to just work with us to try and get something done that makes good sense. 

So I know that, Mr. Chairman, you’d perhaps rather not have to 

keep calling on those of us who want to comment on these amendments, but, of course, that’s what we’re elected to do, and that’s our 

right to do it. And I appreciate your—the fact that it causes this 

Committee to have to go on a little bit longer, but I think it’s imVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:35 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074
212 

portant for us to say, and I’m going to be generous. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentlewoman’s comments, but with regard to not wanting to cooperate, 

let me tell you, there is an intense desire to cooperate. There is an 

intense desire to have due process. I’ve been speaking with Mr. 

Forbes about his act. I pored through it a number of times. I’ve 

gone through it with the staff. I have found them very cooperative 

in trying to work with language that will make it directed right at 

the people that this should go toward. But when you’re wanting to 

propose a study when we have had decades of on-the-job studies, 

some of us, like myself, have sat in a courtroom, have handled 

thousands of cases, and let me tell you, when it comes to guns, you 

get rid of guns, the only people that won’t have them will be the 

law-abiding people. The criminals get them. Out of thousands of 

cases, I don’t recall a single case where anybody ever bought it at 

a gun show or bought it in a sporting goods store. They stole it, 

they traded, the bought it out of trunks, but they did not go to a 

gun store to get it. 

So I am very concerned about stopping the process and having 

further study when some of us have so much on-the-job training, 

while there are people dying and there are people crying and there 

are people begging for help. And we’re going to turn a blind eye to 

that and call for another study? I would encourage voting no 

against the amendment because we have the information. We need 

to move forward and help these poor people who are being killed 

and are being hurt. Thank you. 

Ms. WATERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GOHMERT. I’m yielding back my time to the Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I want to acknowledge that I have respect 

for the new Member here, Mr. Gohmert. I think he has made since 

he’s been here a good contribution. And I understand what he’s 

saying. I think what we are—and I said it earlier, when I don’t 

think you were in the room. What we’re trying to do is accomplish 

something that works. That’s the bottom line. Let’s not call it 

tough, let’s not call it soft. And you weren’t here in the aftermath 

of the Columbine shooting, but there was a real concern among all 

Members what was happening in terms of youth violence. The 

speaker, this current speaker, Speaker Hastert, convened a bipartisan group, 12 on each side, that met on a rather frequent basis. 

It was interesting. It was interesting in the sense that each of 

the Members of that task force was asked to bring somebody to the 

group and give his or her thinking and observations and provide 

the studies that were available. And not one of them—and many, 

of course, were brought by Members on the Republican side—not 

one of them would recommend anything that’s incorporated in Mr. 

213 

Forbes’s bill. Not out of ideological perspective, but based upon 

what works and what’s effective. 

You know, I see, for example, references in here to, you know, 

implicating murders. I mean, I was a State prosecutor. I know the 

Feds. They don’t know how to try murder cases. And if they did, 

they’d screw it up in most cases. So the point is, is to try to do it 

in a way that makes sense. I think that’s the point that the 

gentlelady is making. It’s not a question of studies. We came out 

of that bipartisan task force and passed, I think, under the leadership of Mr. Scott and—who was your—was it—? Who was the chair 

at the time? 

I forget who, but on the Republican chair, you know, Representative McCollum. We got a bill through almost unanimously. The 

problem is we didn’t fund it. We didn’t fund it. And that’s what’s 

missing here oftentimes. When we talk about these programs and 

we reach a consensus, and as authorizers we get it through and we 

all stand up and take a bow, but then it drifts off and no one wants 

to come in with the money. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman yields back. 

The question is on the Scott of Virginia amendment to the Forbes 

of Virginia amendment in the nature of a substitute. Those in favor 

will say aye? Opposed, no? 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I have an amendment at the desk numbered 024. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1279, offered by Mr. Schiff of California. Page 

26, strike lines 9 through 14 and insert the following: ‘‘(d) Authorization of appropriations. (1) In general. There are authorized’’——

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I would request that the amendment 

be considered as read. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The amendment follows:] 

214 


ray.011
215 


ray.012
216 


ray.013
217 


ray.014
218 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. And before starting the clock, we do have an Immigration 

Subcommittee hearing beginning at 4 o’clock. It was the intention 

of the Chair to recess the Committee at 4 o’clock. I’d like to have 

a show of hands of how many Members of the Committee intend 

to debate this, because I would just as soon not recess the Committee in the middle of the debate because that way I don’t think 

everybody will have the full benefit of the arguments on both sides. 

So aside from Mr. Schiff, who wants to debate this? The Schiff 

amendment to the Forbes substitute. Ms. Waters wants—— Ms. WATERS. Yes, I am going to debate it. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay, she wants to debate everything. Anybody else? Mr. Forbes does. Well, let’s try and see if we 

can get this done in 10 minutes. 

And the gentleman’s recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I’ll try to be quick. You’ve 

been very generous on time in the hearing on this. 

I think, as I mentioned in response to the debate on the substitute bill, that the bill really needs to have both components. It 

needs to have elements of suppression and deterrence, but it also 

has to have elements of prevention. The legislation—and this is an 

issue I worked on in the State legislature even after I was a prosecutor. In 2000 I introduced with one of my colleagues a bill in 

California that allocated for the first time as much money to prevention as to the suppression of crime, then $120 million for successful local juvenile crime prevention programs and an equivalent 

amount for cops. And it was very effective, that two-prong attack, 

suppression and prevention. 

What I’m offering in this amendment are the prevention components that exist in a bill I introduced with Mary Bono as well as 

in the bipartisan Senate bill. First, the amendment doubles the authorization for funding to $100 million each year for the next 5 

years, with the requirement that 50 percent of the funding be used 

to support criminal gang enforcement teams and 50 percent of the 

funding be available for community-based programs to provide for 

crime prevention and intervention services. 

Second, the amendment would expand Project Safe Neighborhoods to require U.S. attorneys to identify and prosecute significant 

gangs within their district, coordinating such prosecutions among 

local, State, and Federal law enforcement, and coordinating criminal street gang enforcement teams in designated high-intensity 

interstate gang areas. The amendment would also authorize $150 million over 5 years 

to support anti-gang efforts such as expansion of the Project Safe 

Neighborhoods program that engages U.S. attorneys in these efforts, and the National DAs Association that testified on this spoke 

in support of that program just last week. 

The amendment also reauthorizes the Gang Resistance Education and Training program, GREAT. This is a school-based life 

skills program taught by police officers, and it has a very successful 

track record in teaching our youth in preventing gang crime. This 

amendment authorizes $20 million for each of the next 5 years for 

that program. 

My colleague from Virginia is correct. The base bill doesn’t cut 

existing funding. It does fail to reauthorize the GREAT program 

219 

and it is a significant departure from the Senate bill in that the 

bulk of the prevention funding of the Senate proposal is cut out of 

the base bill. It would be restored in this amendment. So by this 

amendment we would have an equivalent amount of preventive 

funding and a greater amount of funding for even gang prosecution 

team efforts. It would match the Senate bill, and I would urge my 

colleagues’ support. 

And I yield back—— Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I’d be happy to yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. CONYERS. I want to indicate my support for the amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yields back? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I hope 

we’ll reject this amendment. But let me first of all say that I agree 

with Mr. Schiff that many of the programs in here are very good 

programs, and that we need prevention. It’s just this bill is about 

lasering in and taking down these criminal networks and not necessarily all the prevention programs. I put up a chart over here 

that shows almost 2.1—actually almost $2.2 billion of programs 

that we utilize currently for either prevention—some prosecution, 

but a lot of this is prevention. I can’t include all of those programs 

in this particular bill, and if I leave out some of them, somebody 

else is going to be saying why isn’t that program in this particular 

bill. 

On your section (d) and the back section that you have where you 

have authorization, I think the appropriate place for that, your section 205, would be the DOJ reauthorization bill. And I’ll certainly 

work with you on those programs and the DOJ reauthorization bill. 

And your section 203 and 204 are good programs that I’m happy 

to work and talk to you about. But we don’t need these programs 

put in this bill at this particular point in time, and I hope that we 

will reject the amendment. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Would the gentleman yield briefly? 

Mr. FORBES. I’d be happy to yield. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. 

My colleague says this isn’t the place for the prevention funding. 

We passed numerous bills in the past which have had both deterrent components and prevention components. It’s what makes a bill 

comprehensive. And plainly, as my colleague acknowledges, you 

really need both sides of the effort to have a successful approach 

at dealing with gang crime. So there’s a well-worn path and tradition in the House of including both in the same bill. We would be 

departing from that tradition, and indeed I think that component 

is what has buoyed the bipartisan support in the Senate for the 

bill. It would have the same impact, I would hope, in the House. 

And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. FORBES. Well, I think first of all, in response to the gentleman, that while all these programs and many of the programs 

listed up here might be good, again that’s not the purpose of this 

program. The purpose of this program is to laser in on the networks and pull them down. And just as my good friend from Virginia talks about determining what works and what doesn’t and 

220 

have evidence-based approaches on what works, we don’t have that 

on all the prevention programs. But what we know from all the 

prosecutors, all the law enforcement does work, what all of us 

agree will work, is if we pull down these criminal gang networks 

and get rid of the gangs, that’s the best prevention program that 

we can do. That’s what this bill lasers in on and that’s what I hope 

we’ll stick to, the base bill. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. Mr. Chairman and Members, I think this is 

another example of a lack of cooperation from my friends on the 

opposite side of the aisle. Even though I don’t support and did not 

support Mr. Schiff’s substitute amendment because I think that his 

bill carried—I know that his bill carried with it mandatory minimum sentencing, death penalty, and some other things that I cannot embrace, but his bill certainly should have been embraced, his 

supplement should have been embraced, some of it, by the Members on the opposite side of the aisle. As I recall, early on in this 

debate my friends on the opposite side of the aisle talked about 

being concerned about prevention and even held out that their bill 

had in it, along with the law and order-type approach, some prevention. However, I don’t see any real willingness to embrace prevention in any shape, form, or fashion here today. As a matter of 

fact, if you do not support Mr. Schiff’s amendments that would put 

some money into prevention, then perhaps if Mr. Schiff had an 

amendment that would authorize funding for the juvenile justice 

bill that was referred to earlier today by Mr. Scott, that’s known 

as the Juvenile Justice Accountability Block Grant Act, where he 

mentioned that we thought we had authorized a bill and tried to 

get $500 million, it turned out to get $55 million, perhaps if you 

don’t want prevention in your bill, then perhaps this amendment 

could be rearranged so that we could authorize the full funding of 

the prevention that you don’t have in your bill but you do embrace 

because you think that that is important. 

I don’t know, but I would put that out there as a suggestion. If 

in fact you believe in prevention but you don’t want to muddy up 

your bill with prevention, perhaps you would support an amendment that would put the money into the other program. 

Now, as for all the programs that you saw listed, we have no way 

of knowing exactly what you had up there. We do know that there 

is something called the CDBG, the Community Development Block 

Grant, that is being cut by this Administration by 35 percent. 

Much of that money goes to 501(c)(3)’s in cities and towns to deal 

with at-risk youth and to deal with gang problems. And so I would 

like to take a look that you put up there because we could easily 

evaluate that and see what that really is. But I want you to know 

that just in case CDBG was there, the block grant, that most of the 

cities depend on so very much to deal with some of these problems, 

is being cut. I mean it is being slaughtered by this Administration 

and perhaps even transferred out of HUD, which is quite unfortunate. And I suppose if I take a close look at the other programs 

that you have put up there, I can tell you exactly what they’re getting, what that money is used for, and we’d be able to make a determination about whether or not that really is the kind of prevention money that this gentleman is referring to. 

221 

Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentlewoman yield? 

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from California. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I just wanted to say it’s great to have you back on 

my side. 

Ms. WATERS. Just for a moment. 

Mr. SCHIFF. It’s not a future commitment, I understand that. 

Thank you. And I yield back to the gentlelady. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentlelady yield back? 

Ms. WATERS. Oh, yes. I’m sorry. Yes, I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, the Chair is going to put the 

question. If the gentleman from Virginia seeks recognition, then 

we’re going to have to adjourn the Committee. Okay. 

The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 

by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes. Those in favor will say 

aye? Opposed, no? 

The noes appear to have it. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, on that I request a recorded vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A recorded vote is ordered. Those in 

favor of the Schiff amendment to the Forbes substitute will, as 

your names are called, answer aye. Those opposed, no. Immediately 

after this rollcall, the Committee will adjourn. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus? 

Mr. BACHUS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Green? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

222 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, aye. Mr. Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Members who wish to cast or change 

their vote? The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Coble? 

223 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their vote? If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 8 ayes and 18 noes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is not agreed 

to. 

The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

BUSINESS MEETING 

(continued) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. A 

working quorum is present. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. When the Committee last recessed, 

pending was the adoption of H.R. 1279, the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and 

Community Protection Act.’’ The gentleman from North Carolina, 

on behalf of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security reported the bill favorably and moved its favorable recommendation to the full House. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes, had offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to 

which several second degree amendments were offered and defeated. 

We will now resume consideration of the Forbes amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1279. Are there any further second degree amendments to the Forbes amendment in the nature of 

a substitute? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 

the desk——

Mr. CARSON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1279 officer by Mr. Scott of Virginia. Page 3, line 

16, strike subsection ‘‘(b)(2).’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes a civil asset 

forfeiture provision added to the bill. I don’t know where it came 


1279H.eps
224 

from. It wasn’t part of the bill when it left Subcommittee, but 

somewhere along the lines it got paper clipped onto the back of the 

bill. We already have a provision for criminal asset forfeiture which 

means that—which requires that we actually convict somebody before we take their property as proceeds of or used in furtherance 

of a crime. This provision just allows the Department of Justice to 

go after somebody’s property whether they’ve been convicted or not. 

We have been dealing with this issue over the last several years, 

Mr. Chairman, and I would hope that we would not just stick this 

onto a bill without any consideration, no Subcommittee hearings or 

anything else. 

I would yield back the balance of my time. Wait a minute. I yield 

to the gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could we ask the author of this bill, Mr. Forbes, 

what he knows about the provision that you’re commenting on, sir? 

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back 

my time. I think the gentleman, my colleague from Virginia is 

seeking his own time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The other gentleman from Virginia, 

Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, this is a provision that——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Do you move to strike the last word? 

Mr. FORBES. Yes, move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If so, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, this is a provision that is not absolutely essential for bringing down these criminal gang networks. In 

the spirit of cooperation with my colleague from Virginia, I hope 

that we’ll accept this amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman yield back? 

Mr. FORBES. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. Those in favor 

will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment 

is agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. I have an amendment at the desk, No. 2. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report Scott No. 2. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. 

On page 2, line 9 delete the phrase ‘‘to death or’’. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read, and the gentleman from Virginia is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 

225 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this series 

of amendments deletes the death penalty from the bill. In 2000 the 

Federal Government identified serious problems of racial and geographic disparity in the Federal death penalty, and although we 

have passed the Innocence Protection Act, we haven’t done anything about racial and geographical disparity in the death penalty. 

We need to fix that before we start adding new death penalties to 

the bill. 

Just last week the New York legislature considered the death 

penalty. It didn’t reinstate it. New Mexico, Connecticut and Montana are all considering repealing their death penalties. North 

Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey and Illinois all have or are considering moratoriums on executions. We know that there is a strong 

consensus amongst criminologists that the death penalty is not a 

deterrent to homicide, and in fact it may have a brutalizing effect 

and actually increase homicides, and whatever deterrent effect it 

has, it has even less effect on young adults that will be affected by 

this legislation. So we have already just recently provided a prohibition against executing juveniles. You have the same kinds of 

problems with younger adults in that it does not serve a useful 

purpose. 

Many people are convicted and sentenced to death by error. 

About 2 out of every 3 capital judgments reviewed by courts has 

reversed the death penalty. We have inadequate legal representation that has a racially disparate impact. 

And I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we wouldn’t, as we consider what to do about gangs, I would hope we would not load it 

up with this controversial idea that the death penalty might actually reduce the crimes. 

I’ll yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will reject this 

amendment and the other amendments which would gut the death 

penalty our of this provision. As we are debating this bill, a FedVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:27 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

1279I.eps
226 

eral trial is going on in the Commonwealth of Virginia where one 

of these gang members and several of his compatriots bragged to 

law enforcement agents that he had the power to order the murder 

of anybody he wanted to and there would be nothing that they 

could do to stop him. Unfortunately, 4 months later he was successful in that, killed a witness that was going to be testifying against 

him in trial. 

This is a debate over the death penalty. The one thing I would 

agree with my colleague over is that this is the essence of whether 

or not we’re going to have a death penalty or not. If we’re going 

to have a death penalty the people this applies to are the most heinous and worse people that we can be dealing with, and that’s 

where we want the death penalty. 

I would, however, strongly differ with him, no many how many 

times he says it, there is no consensus among criminologists that 

the death penalty is not a deterrent to additional crimes. In fact, 

just the opposite. There are numerous studies that show that the 

death penalty is an incredibly strong prevention and deterrent to 

criminal crimes. I hope that we will not rip it out of this bill, that 

we will leave the death penalty provisions intact, and that we will 

defeat this amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman yield back? 

Mr. FORBES. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Michigan? 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment 

of the gentleman from Virginia. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. First of all, I’d like to ask Mr. Scott, is this the 

main point in this bill, Mr. Scott, that we’ll be discussing, the 

death penalty and its usefulness in fighting crime? 

Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman would yield. Mr. Chairman, the consensus amongst criminologists is that the death penalty will not 

serve a constructive purpose in the bill, will not reduce crime, may 

increase crime, and whatever good the death penalty does, it has 

even less effect with young people. That’s why the death penalty 

was shown to unconstitutional as it applies to juveniles. 

Again, if our goal is to reduce crime, the imposition of the death 

penalty in this case will not do it. In the case where somebody’s 

ordering executions, they can already get life imprisonment. To 

suggest that that’s a nothing, that you can’t do anything to me but 

lock you up for life without parole, that’s—and I don’t think that 

position is well taken. You can lock somebody up for life, and I 

think that has shown to be a sufficient deterrent, whatever deterrent there may be. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I’ve got a staff paper here that goes to the 

wrongful convictions of people who have been sentenced to death, 

over 100 in the United States, later to be exonerated. We remember that in Illinois former Governor Ryan declared a moratorium 

in his State after 13 people were released from death row because 

of their innocence. 

We are confronted with the statistic that nearly 80 percent of 

those convictions, whose convictions were reversed, did not get the 

death penalty at retrial, and that more than 2 out of every 3 capital judgments reviewed by the courts during a 23-year period were 

227 

flawed. In other words, this paper goes on and on. The American 

Bar Association has pointed out inadequate legal representation in 

capital cases, and the fact that many of the people that are representing—court appointed attorneys representing these defendants are very poorly compensated, and many of them are new lawyers. And then the gentleman from Virginia mentioned the racially 

disproportionate impact of the death penalty. Current death row 

populations show racially discriminatory impact of death penalty 

sentencing. In Alabama 46 percent of those sentenced to death are 

black; California 36 percent; Florida the same number; Illinois 63 

percent; Maryland 72 percent; Pennsylvania 63 percent; Virginia 

39 percent. So a defendant’s likelihood of receiving the death penalty correlates with the victim’s race. 

I was just wondering if my friend Mr. Forbes has had a chance 

to review any of this material either at the Subcommittee level or 

does it have any impact upon his insistence that the death penalty 

be kept in this legislation dealing with your offenders? I yield to 

him at this point. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you for yielding. First of all, let me respond 

to the first part of the question that my colleague from Virginia 

said. The individual that ordered the murders that I was referencing earlier was actually in jail and in prison when he did it. 

To say that a life sentence would have deterred him, would not 

have, but I would suggest capital punishment could have. 

Also, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that consistently the statistics show that capital punishment is a substantial deterrent. The 

most up to date and exhaustive study produced by researchers at 

Emory University in 2002 concludes that each execution prevents 

on average about 18 murders. The academic study’s findings are 

confirmed by the recent experience of those States that actively enforce the death penalty and those States that do not allow capital 

punishment. 

In 1984 this Nation’s prisons held 810 inmates serving sentences 

for murder, who once before in their lives had been convicted of 

murder. Had these killers been executed for their first murder conviction, 821 innocent men, women and children would have lived. 

I can go on, but I think my time has expired, Mr. Chairman, but 

we have numerous other studies that buttress the same conclusions. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ISSA. Since we are going to talk about the death penalty I 

just wanted to pick up for clarification on something Mr. Scott said. 

I think perhaps you didn’t mean what I heard, which was that the 

death penalty was somehow less of a deterrent to people under 18 

and that’s why the Supreme Court struck it down. That wasn’t my 

understanding of the Supreme Court decision at all. You didn’t 

mean to say that, did you, that that was the basis for the Supreme 

Court decision? And I yield to the gentleman. 

228 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, they said that the mind is not sufficiently 

formed and that you’re not making long-range determinations, so 

it did not serve a—it didn’t serve as a deterrent. Yeah, that’s what 

I said, it does not serve as a deterrent. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So reclaiming my time, in light of the Supreme 

Court decision, we’re not talking about that group of people. 

They’re not covered by this. We’re talking about adults here in this 

gang activity. 

Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. ISSA. Yes, I would. 

Mr. SCOTT. The finding was that the mind was not fully developed until somewhere around 25, and so executing people 18 and 

under was unconstitutional. For the same rationale it is less effective for those 18 to 25 than those over 25. It is much less effective 

as a deterrent for those under 18, but the 18 to 25, the rationale 

in the bill would apply to a lesser extent 18 to 25. 

Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. And without getting into the particulars of the death penalty, I certainly will 

be supporting—or opposing this amendment because I believe the 

Supreme Court has spoken, set a date for this purpose, and having 

been 18 to 25 and having a 24-year-old, who shows all signs of taking every minute of that to get to where he should be in maturity, 

I would certainly agree with the gentleman that older is better, but 

I think we also would find that people over 25 commit crimes dramatically lower too. That shouldn’t be incarceration or enforcement 

if it leads to safer streets, and that’s why I’ll be opposing this 

amendment, but I do thank the gentleman for clarifying his position on youth. 

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

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from California, Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I support the amendment and 

I yield my time to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. I turn now to my friend, 

Mr. Forbes. Again, because I’m sorry he heard about this one fellow 

in prison who made this brash statement that motivates him so 

strongly, but what about the questions that I raised, Mr. Forbes, 

about the wrongful convictions, namely over 100 people that have 

been sentenced to death were later exonerated; that Governor Ryan 

of Illinois declared a moratorium after 13 people were released 

from death row because of their innocence; and that nearly 80 percent of those who were retried did not get the death penalty at retrial; that the American Bar Association finds there are gross inadequate legal misrepresentations or inadequate representations on 

the part of the new lawyers who are very frequently poorly compensated; and the racially disproportionate impact of the death 

penalty as it applies to young people? 

And it seems to me that those four considerations require us to 

do a little bit more than worry about what one fellow in a prison 

bragged that he could do. I mean I think this has got to—the 

American Bar was taking a little wider view of this. The General 

Accounting Office reviewed numerous studies of patterns or racial 

discrimination in death penalty sentencing, and I would feel a little 

bit better if you at least acknowledged these considerations, and 

perhaps choose not to agree with them, but for us just to skip over 

229 

this, we’re talking life and death here, and I think it’s a pretty serious matter. 

Mr. FORBES. Yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course, with pleasure. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you for yielding. 

Mr. Chairman, I would say that I would equally feel better if we 

gave consideration to individuals like Michelle Guest, who was the 

witness who came in here whose husband was murdered and she 

was left a widow and she was left with 9 children without a father. 

And if you continue looking, if there are procedural problems we 

have to look at, feel free to look at those. If there are competency 

for counsel problems to look at, look at those. 

But also look at at the same time a May 2002 study by the University of Colorado at Denver, which is probably the most exhaustive study, 6,143 death sentences from 1997—1977 to 1997. And 

when they compared the changes in States murder rates to the 

probability of being executed for murder, they found not only that 

each execution has a significant deterrent effect, but that each commutation of death sentences increases homicides between 4 and 5. 

So when I’m looking at individuals who are being murdered and 

killed by violent gang criminals, I want to give some consideration 

to them as well, and I believe that this death penalty will do that. 

As the gentleman from California mentioned, it will make our 

streets continue to be safer from some of these violent criminals. 

That’s why I support the death penalty and the provisions that are 

included in this bill. 

Mr. CONYERS. Do you have any comments about the racially disproportionate impact of the death penalty as it is visited upon our 

citizens here? 

Mr. FORBES. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, 

I would say that if there are, as I mentioned, disparities, whether 

they be racial in nature or from incompetent counsel, I think certainly there are things that need to be explored and examined, but 

that doesn’t mean that we should do away with the death penalty 

or that we should stop trying to seek the death penalty for violent 

murderers who are continuing to create more and more victims 

every single day that we continue to debate this bill. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, let me ask Mr. Scott of Virginia whether or 

not these matters have been adequately explored at the Subcommittee level because, look, no one is more sympathetic to Mrs. 

Guest—Ms. Guest, who was before the Committee—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman from 

California has expired. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt? 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As so often happens in 

this Committee, I think we are kind of talking past each other 

here, and I’m going to refrain from getting into the debate about 

whether the death penalty is a deterrent, an effective deterrent, a 

worthwhile deterrent. I think—I certainly have strong feelings 

about that issue, but I think we’ll find that on that issue there 

have been reports that have—or studies or statistical analyses that 

have been all over the lot. And whenever I hear a defense of the 

death penalty as a deterrent I’m always struck by the accompanying argument that describes the most egregious kinds of 

crimes that have taken place, and it’s hard to not feel some anVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:27 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074
230 

guish and disappointment about the nature of the crimes that are 

being described. 

What I think is uncontroverted, however, in this whole debate is 

the point that Mr. Conyers has been making. You can have studies, 

you do have studies all over the lot about whether the death penalty is a deterrent. What there aren’t studies all over the lot about 

is that there have been just an untold number of mistakes made 

in the administration of the death penalty, people being put to 

death, being put on death row who were subsequently determined 

to be absolutely innocent of the crime with which they were 

charged. 

What there is no dispute about in the research is that in the administration of the death penalty there is just absolute clarity to 

the fact that there is a racial bias that minorities, African-Americans tend, certainly in every case, in every study I’ve seen, have 

the death penalty administered against them disproportionately 

than members of the majority race. 

so when I see a bill and look at the specific provisions that Mr. 

Scott in his amendment is proposing to delete, and I see time after 

time after time after time after time, there were five, six, five provisions I guess that Mr. Scott is proposing to delete. In every single 

one of those the word ‘‘shall’’ appears. There is no discretion about 

whether the death penalty will be administered in those cases, in 

every single one of those instances. 

And when I know that behind that, before you get to the ‘‘shall 

administer the death penalty’’ there is racial bias and there are 

documented mistakes that have been made in whether the person 

is guilty or not. To have a long drawn out argument about whether 

the death penalty is a deterrent, it seems to me, misses the point. 

And so regardless of where you are in your beliefs about whether 

the death penalty is an effective deterrent or not, surely you don’t 

want people put to death by mistake. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman? Could I just finish my sentence? I ask 

for 30 seconds. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. WATT. Surely my colleagues would not want the death penalty administered in the ‘‘shall’’ fashion on a racially discriminatory 

basis. And I just, you know, I think we’re missing the point to have 

a long drawn out debate about deterrence. Until we can get the administration of the death penalty right racially and without mistakes, to talk about deterrence I think just misses the point. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Time of the gentleman has once 

again expired. 

For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek recognition? 

Mr. LUNGREN. To strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, on this issue it is important for us 

to have a debate and a record that is accurate and does not leave 

certain misimpressions on that record. As the Attorney General of 

the State of California I was required to represent the State in all 

criminal matters following conviction, including all death penalty 

231 

cases. I had a capital case project which specifically involved the 

prosecutors who were exclusively involved in death penalty cases 

or nearly exclusively involved in death penalty cases. 

I had the opportunity to argue a death penalty case before the 

United States Supreme Court. Interestingly enough, I won that 

particular argument, and the death penalty was continued. Subsequently, that convicted murderer—multiple murderers—sentence 

was changed from death to life imprisonment based on what some 

would call a technicality. It had nothing to do with guilt or innocence, had nothing to do with exoneration. Had to do with the fact 

of a claim of lack of competent counsel. And the interesting thing 

is that I call it a technicality because the counsel’s—the argument 

against the counsel’s representation was that this public defender 

was involved in running for Congress at the time, and he was distracted by running for Congress such that he couldn’t give enough 

time. 

Well, I went back and looked at the record. The person he was 

running against at that time happened to be me. I know how much 

time that person spent in Congress, and I know there wasn’t any 

possibility that the amount of time he spent in running for office 

distracted him from an appropriate time commitment to that defendant. And yet if we were to take what was stated by the gentleman on the other side at face value, they would say that there 

was a mistake, that this multiple murderer, who murdered two 

gang members because they looked at him the wrong way, then 

went back and murdered two witnesses because they could identify 

him following the murder, was somehow not in fact guilty of first 

degree murder, was not in fact guilty of first degree murder with 

special circumstances, was not in fact guilty of murder multiple 

times. In fact he was. 

But what has just been presented on the record is that his case 

would be one of those suggesting that he had wrongly been sentenced to death, and that somehow this proves that the courts are 

not doing the proper thing in allowing people who do not deserve 

the death penalty to be sent to death. 

Secondly, I would just suggest that some of the statements that 

say this mandatorily sentences someone to death is a misreading 

of the bill. If you look at page 2, lines 8 and 9, which the gentleman’s amendment seeks to change, it says, ‘‘If the gang crime results in the death of any person he be sentenced to death or life 

in prison.’’ That doesn’t say he’s mandatorily to receive death. 

Thirdly, this is within the Federal system, so recitations of the 

problems with Illinois are not relevant here. This is in the Federal 

system. 

Fourthly, for one to get the death penalty one has to go through 

a bifurcated trial in which guilt or innocence is determined in the 

first instance, and then there’s a separate process by which a determination of whether the aggravating circumstances outweigh the 

mitigating circumstances. So even if you fit everything that is said 

in this bill, there is no suggestion that one is mandatorily sentenced to death. 

Lastly, this idea that somehow the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the death penalty should give us guidance in this case is 

kind of interesting because we received a communication, written 

communication from the Judicial Conference in which they suggest 

232 

we not pass this bill because this would put it in the Federal system, and according to the Judicial Conference, they have very little 

experience dealing with juveniles. So I find of interesting in this instance that we have the court on the one hand trying to tell us 

what we should do, or people trying to utilize their information or 

their comments on trying to tell us not to do it. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would the distinguished gentleman from California yield? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Now, the other side, them saying they really don’t 

know what they’re talking about in this regard. 

Yes, I would be very happy to. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the former Attorney General from California for yielding. 

Is it your experience, Mr. Lungren, that the death penalty is unfair or that the death penalty is fair? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. Can he respond, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the gentleman will 

be given 10 seconds to respond. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Fair. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has once 

again expired. 

[Intervening business.] 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I ask unanimous consent to put the American Civil Liberties Union statement immediately following my remarks? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

233 


1279J1.eps
234 


1279J2.eps
235 


1279J3.eps
236 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the Scott Amendment No. 2. Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it and the amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. Sa ́nchez. 


1279J4.eps
237 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment 

and the number of the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Ms. Sa ́nchez of California. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And what’s the number of the 

amendment so that—— The CLERK. Amendment No. 013. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will continue reporting the 

amendment. 

The CLERK. At the end of the bill, insert the following new section: 

Sec. 2.——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, may I ask if the amendment be 

considered as read? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, so ordered, and 

the gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 

238 H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO THE FORBES AMENDMENT IN

THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 1279

OFFERED BY MS. LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ OF

CALIFORNIA

At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

1 SEC. 2ll. AMENDMENTS TO SAFE AND DRUG-FREE

2 SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES ACT REGARD3 ING BULLYING AND GANGS.

4 (a) AMENDMENTS TO SAFE AND DRUG-FREE

5 SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES ACT.—Part A of title IV of

6 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20

7 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; commonly referred to as the ‘‘Safe

8 and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act’’) is

9 amended—

10 (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) in

11 section 4002, and in sections 4112(a)(5)(A),

12 4115(b)(1)(C)(i), and 4115(b)(2)(A)(i), by striking

13 ‘‘violence’’ and inserting ‘‘violence, bullying, and

14 gangs’’;

15 (2) in clause (ii) of section 4112(c)(2)(D), by

16 striking ‘‘violence that is associated’’ and inserting

17 ‘‘violence, bullying, and gangs that are associated’’;


1279K.AAB
239 

2

H.L.C.

1 (3) by striking the term ‘‘drug and violence pre2 vention’’ each place such term appears and inserting

3 ‘‘drug, violence, bullying, and gang prevention’’, in4 cluding in sections 4002(1), 4002(2), 4002(4),

5 4112(a)(3), 4112(a)(5), 4112(c)(2)(D), 4113(a)(4),

6 4113(a)(5), 4113(a)(9), 4113(a)(10), 4113(a)(14),

7 4114(a)(1), 4114(c)(1)(A), 4114(d)(2), 4114(d)(6),

8 4115(a)(1)(A), 4115(b)(2)(B), 4115(b)(2)(C),

9 4115(b)(2)(D), 4115(b)(2)(E), 4115(d),

10 4116(a)(1)(B), 4121(a)(1), 4121(a)(2), and

11 4121(a)(5);

12 (4) by striking the term ‘‘drug use and vio13 lence’’ each place such term appears and inserting

14 ‘‘drug use, violence, bullying, and gangs’’, including

15 in sections 4002(4), 4112(a)(2), 4112(c)(3)(B)(iv),

16 4113(a)(9)(A), 4115(b)(1)(C)(ii), 4116(a)(2)(B),

17 and 4122(c);

18 (5) in section 4112(c)(3)(B)(ii), by striking ‘‘vi19 olence and drug-related’’ and inserting ‘‘violence,

20 bullying, gang, and drug-related’’;

21 (6) in section 4114(d)(6), by striking ‘‘acts of

22 violence’’ and inserting ‘‘acts of violence, bullying,

23 and gangs’’;

24 (7) in sections 4115(a)(1)(A), 4115(a)(1)(C),

25 4115(a)(2)(A), 4115(b)(2)(E), and 4122(a), by


1279K.AAC
240 

3

H.L.C.

1 striking the term ‘‘violence and illegal drug use’’

2 each place such term appears and inserting ‘‘vio3 lence, bullying, gangs, and illegal drug use’’;

4 (8) in section 4115(b)(2)(B), by striking the

5 term ‘‘violence and illegal use of drugs’’ each place

6 such term appears and inserting ‘‘violence, bullying,

7 gangs, and illegal use of drugs’’;

8 (9) in the matter preceding clause (i) in section

9 4115(b)(2)(E), and in section 4152(a), by striking

10 the term ‘‘Drug and violence prevention’’ each place

11 such term appears and inserting ‘‘Drug, violence,

12 bullying, and gang prevention’’;

13 (10) in sections 4115(b)(2)(E)(vii) and 4122(b)

14 by striking ‘‘illegal drug use and violence’’ and in15 serting ‘‘violence, bullying, gangs, and illegal drug

16 use’’;

17 (11) in section 4115(b)(2)(E)(ix), by striking

18 ‘‘violent or drug abusing students’’ and inserting

19 ‘‘violent, bullying, gang-affiliated, or drug abusing

20 students’’;

21 (12) in section 4115(b)(2)(E)(x), by striking

22 ‘‘violent behavior and illegal use of drugs’’ and in23 serting ‘‘violent behavior, bullying, gang affiliation,

24 and illegal use of drugs’’;

25 (13) in section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xiii)—


1279K.AAD
241 

4

H.L.C.

1 (A) by striking ‘‘violence prevention and

2 education programs’’ and inserting ‘‘violence,

3 bullying, and gang prevention and education

4 programs’’; and

5 (B) by striking ‘‘resolve conflicts without

6 violence’’ and inserting ‘‘resolve conflicts with7 out violence, bullying, or gangs’’;

8 (14) in section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xv), by striking

9 ‘‘major accident, or a drug-related incident’’ and in10 serting ‘‘major accident, bullying incident, gang-re11 lated incident, or a drug-related incident’’;

12 (15) in sections 4115(b)(2)(E)(xviii) and

13 4116(b)(1), by striking ‘‘safety hotline’’ and insert14 ing ‘‘safety, bullying prevention, and gang preven15 tion hotline’’;

16 (16) in section 4116(a)(1)(C), by striking ‘‘vio17 lence and drug prevention’’ and inserting ‘‘drug, vio18 lence, bullying, and gang prevention’’;

19 (17) in section 4121(a), by striking ‘‘illegal use

20 of drugs and violence’’ and inserting ‘‘violence, bul21 lying, gang activity, and illegal drug use’’;

22 (18) in section 4121(a)(4), by striking ‘‘violence

23 prevention and education’’ and inserting ‘‘violence,

24 bullying, and gang prevention and education’’;


1279K.AAE
242 

5

H.L.C.

1 (19) in sections 4121(a)(6) and 4121(a)(8), by

2 striking ‘‘drug and violence problems’’ and inserting

3 ‘‘drug, violence, bullying, and gang problems’’;

4 (20) in section 4122(a)(2), by striking ‘‘and

5 school violence’’ and inserting ‘‘school violence, bul6 lying, gang activity,’’;

7 (21) in sections 4124(a)(1)(B) and 4124(a)(3),

8 by striking ‘‘substance abuse and violence preven9 tion’’ and inserting ‘‘violence, bullying, gang, and

10 substance abuse prevention’’;

11 (22) in section 4124(b)(4)(A)(i), by striking

12 ‘‘substance abuse and violence problem’’ and insert13 ing ‘‘violence, bullying, gang, and substance abuse

14 problem’’;

15 (23) in section 4127(c), by striking ‘‘school vio16 lence research’’ and inserting ‘‘school violence, bul17 lying, and gang research’’;

18 (24) in section 4128(b)(2), by striking ‘‘such as

19 substance abuse’’ and inserting ‘‘such as bullying,

20 substance abuse’’;

21 (25) in section 4128(b)(4), by striking ‘‘school

22 violence prevention’’ and inserting ‘‘school violence,

23 bullying, and gang prevention’’;

24 (26) in section 4130(b)(1)(B)(iv), by striking

25 ‘‘violence, use of dangerous weapons’’ and inserting


1279K.AAF
243 

6

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘violence, bullying, gangs, use of dangerous weap2 ons’’;

3 (27) in section 4130(b)(5)(B)(i), by striking

4 ‘‘schools with violence problems’’ and inserting

5 ‘‘schools with violence, bullying, or gang problems’’;

6 (28) in section 4151—

7 (A) in paragraph (3)—

8 (i) by striking ‘‘DRUG AND VIOLENCE

9 PREVENTION’’ in the heading and inserting

10 ‘‘DRUG, VIOLENCE, BULLYING, AND GANG

11 PREVENTION’’;

12 (ii) by striking ‘‘drug and violence

13 prevention’’ each place such term appears

14 and inserting ‘‘drug, violence, bullying, and

15 gang prevention’’; and

16 (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking

17 ‘‘with respect to violence’’ and inserting

18 ‘‘with respect to violence, bullying, and

19 gangs’’; and

20 (B) in paragraphs (6) and (7), by striking

21 ‘‘violent behavior’’ and inserting ‘‘violent, bul22 lying, or gang behavior’’; and

23 (29) in section 4152(a), by striking ‘‘acts of vi24 olence’’ and inserting ‘‘acts of violence and bul25 lying’’.


1279K.AAG
244 

7

H.L.C.

1 (b) AMENDMENT TO OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND

2 SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968.—Paragraph (13) of section

3 1801 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act

4 of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 2796ee; relating to juvenile account5 ability block grants) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(13) establishing and maintaining account7 ability-based programs that are designed to enhance

8 school safety, which programs may include research9 based bullying and gang prevention programs;’’.


1279K.AAH
245 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking 

Member Conyers. 

I am offering the full text of a bill that I introduced called the 

Bullying and Gang Prevention for School Safety and Crime Reduction Act of 2005 as an amendment to H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act. 

My piece of legislation addresses our gang epidemic through 

youth intervention, which H.R. 1279 completely neglects. There is 

nothing in this bill that will deter young people from joining gangs. 

I agree with the supporters of this bill that gangs are a serious 

issue. However, the problem of gangs cannot be addressed simply 

by imposing death penalties. The problem of gangs must be addressed by using a two-pronged approach that utilizes both prevention and intervention. 

My amendment would allow schools to fund gang prevention programs through these two existing Federal statutes, the Safe and 

Drug Free Schools and Communities Act and the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program. 

It is well and good that President Bush says that he’s going to 

fund gang prevention programs. That is hard to believe though 

when he cuts programs like Weed and Seed, COPS and the 21st 

Century After School Programs, which are under way and have 

proven to be effective at deterring gang activity. If this Administration means what it says, then programs like Weed and Seed, COPS 

and the 21st Century After School Program need to continue to be 

funded. This is where we need to start to begin to address the gang 

issue. Death or lengthy minimum sentences that imprison children 

for decades are not the answer. Everyone agrees, including law enforcement and gang experts, that youth intervention and counseling programs keep kids out of gangs. My bill is the type of gang 

prevention proposal that this Committee should be marking up. 

Even if the Committee accepted my amendment, the mandatory 

minimum sentences directed at children are so harsh that I cannot 

support H.R. 1279. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to review my bill, to consider joining me as a cosponsor of this legislation. I would appreciate an opportunity to work with my colleagues 

on the other side of the aisle on this bill. 

And with that, Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment, because I cannot under any circumstances vote in favor of H.R. 1279. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is withdrawn. 

Are there further amendments? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 

No. 7. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report Scott No. 7. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. 

On page 4, lines 8–18, delete section 101 (1) CRIMINAL 

STREET GANG. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 

246 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, there is already a definition in the 

law of a criminal street gang. In the current law has been defined 

as a criminal street gang, which is much better drafted than the 

one we have before us. It is narrowly tailored, requires a showing 

that the purpose of the group is to engage in illegal activity. The 

bill before us actually includes misdemeanors which could result in 

10-year mandatory minimums. It’s over expansive and I think unnecessary, and I would hope that we would stay with the definition 

that we have in other sections of the law. 

I’ll yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, this bill, as we had mentioned before, is a comprehensive bill that has been worked out in coordination with law enforcement, agents, with prosecutors, with folks on 

the street. One of the things that we look at, as my good friend 

from Virginia indicates, that we’ve had this language around before 

in the bill. That language has not worked and that’s why we need 

this new provision because even though the language in 521 has 

been around for 10 years, there have only been 10 prosecutions 

under it. And we believe that the statute that we have gets at the 

heart of what we need for violent criminal gangs. It hits the toughest of the penalties. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to point out that on the provisions of this bill it is supported by the National Latino Peace Officers Association. It is supported by the Newport News Police Department, the Chief from there. It is supported by the Fraternal 

Order of Police. It is supported by, in addition to that, the National 

Association of Police Organizations. It is also supported by the 

Major Cities Chief Association, which are the 63 members of the 

major cities and police chiefs across the country, and also by the 

National Troopers Coalition. 

Mr. Chairman, without objection, I’d like to submit those records 

of—those letters of support to the record. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


1279L.eps
247 


1279G1.eps
248 


1279G2.eps
249 


1279G3.eps
250 


1279G4.eps
251 


1279G5.eps
252 


1279G6.eps
253 


1279G7.eps
254 


1279G8.eps
255 


1279G9.eps
256 


1279G10.eps
257 


1279G11.eps
258 


1279G12.eps
259 


1279G13.eps
260 


1279G14.eps
261 


1279G15.eps
262 

Mr. FORBES. I hope we will reject this amendment by my good 

friend from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FORBES. I’ll be happy to yield. 

Mr. SCOTT. I just wanted to comment that I find it surprising 

that the Chief of Police of Newport News would suggest that the 

criminal laws and definitions are insufficient. I talked to him about 

a week, about 2 weeks ago at a meeting, and he indicated that he 

did not believe that there was any need to change the criminal law 

in—to reduce gang violence. So I just point out that that comes as 

a complete surprise. And that under this bill misdemeanors can result in 10-year mandatory minimums. 

Yield back. Thank the gentleman for yielding. 


1279G16.eps
263 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I can only say to the gentleman that 

I’m going by the written letter I have from the Chief, and to remind the gentleman that this is not just a bill that deals with one 

particular area, but we’re also setting up enormous resources to 

State and local law enforcement. We are also dealing to bring down 

these gang networks. This is a definition that we believe will suffice to do that. Again, I hope that we won’t weaken the definition, 

but will continue it as it’s drafted in the bill. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman yield back? 

The question is on the Scott amendment No. 7. Those in favor 

will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. I have an amendment at the desk, 7A. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report amendment 7A. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. 

On page 4, lines line 10, after ‘‘individuals’’——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the amendment is 

considered as read, and the gentleman from Virginia is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment too seeks to clarify 

the definition of a criminal street gang. The amendment would 

clarify that the—well, as the bill now reads, any time three people 

get together and commit a crime, virtually any crime, they are by 

definition a criminal street gang. If three neighborhood kids get together and get into a fistfight, steal a car across State lines, that 

behavior would be considered a gang for purposes of Federal law. 

This amendment seeks to narrow the definition so that only groups 

whose purpose is to commit crimes are defined as gangs. 

Lastly, this broadly drafted language in the bill would turn any 

criminal activity that crosses State lines or affects interstate commerce into a Federal offence. A crime is not Federal issue. The Federal Government should leave prosecution to the States and we 

should not have three people who commit a crime subject to these 

10-year mandatory minimums because the language is so broad 


1279M.eps
264 

that they were suddenly considered a gang for the purposes of 

these mandatory minimums. 

I yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I know my friend from Virginia has 

read the bill, and if he has read the bill he knows that the statement he made that three people can get together and commit a 

crime then qualifies them as a criminal gang is just not accurate. 

Under this bill, we have specifically made clear that what you have 

to have is three or more people in association together, but they 

have to have committed two crimes, one of which was a violent 

criminal act. In addition to that, they had to be over two different 

periods of time, and it had to be in furtherance of the gang activity. 

And I want you to look at this chart that I’ve put up here on violent criminal gangs to just make sure because we have heard such 

a blending of apples and oranges because if you’re outside of that 

black circle on there, and that’s all the individuals before they become gang members, this bill doesn’t seek to reach them. Even 

when they get inside of that gray area right in there and they’re 

gang members, this bill doesn’t get to reach them either, but once 

they have moved into the two inner circles where they have committed gang crimes—and also look at some of the gang crimes that 

we list in the bill, they’re witness intimidation, maiming, machete 

attacks, drug trafficking, armed robbery, murder—they are the 

things that we’re trying to go and bring down these networks. It’s 

only when they’ve moved into those two inner circles does this bill 

reach out to grab them and to bring down those criminal networks. 

So to suggest that three individuals can be together and commit 

one crime that’s a misdemeanor crime and makes them a violent 

criminal gang just is not what this bill says. It is not what the intention of this bill is. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will vote against this amendment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FORBES. I’ll be happy to yield. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are misdemeanors included in the definition of 

crimes——

Mr. FORBES. These are crimes—the mandatory minimums apply 

to crimes that you’re going to be receiving at least 1 year or more 

under State or Federal law. 

Mr. SCOTT. I will ask the question again. Do some States have 

1 year or more for misdemeanors? 

Mr. FORBES. Well, if they do, then this would apply to them. 

Mr. SCOTT. So in Massachusetts where you can get 2 years for 

a misdemeanor, you can commit a misdemeanor and get—be subjected to mandatory minimums of 10 years. 

Mr. FORBES. But you would—to be a criminal gang you would 

have had to have had at least one offense which was a violent 

criminal offense in that gang. 

Mr. SCOTT. A misdemeanor. 

Mr. FORBES. A violent criminal offense. 

Mr. SCOTT. A violent misdemeanor. 

265 

Mr. FORBES. Well, if it was a violent misdemeanor, then it would 

be a violent misdemeanor. That would be a violent criminal gang. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman yield back? 

Mr. FORBES. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The noes appear to have it, the noes have it. The amendment is 

not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment on the 

same section, No. 8. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report Scott amendment No. 8. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. 

On page 4, line 23, delete the phrase ‘‘crime of violence’’ and insert ‘‘serious violent felony’’. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the amendment is 

considered as read, and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, 

will be recognized for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this—based on our prior discussion, 

it’s obvious that even misdemeanors can be considered under the 

definition of criminal street gangs. This would at least require the 

predicate offense to be felonies. This would—the underlying bill 

would enormously expand what is currently considered to be a 

gang crime under Federal law. It would make any crime of violence 

or virtually any drug offense a gang crime, any burglary a gang 

crime, any misdemeanor—you get resisting arrest in the commission of a drug offense, I mean that’s two offenses right there. One 

person commits a crime. Another person commits another crime, 

misdemeanors. All of a sudden you’re a gang and everybody’s up 

for 10 years mandatory minimum. 

At least we ought to—if we’re going to go after all those murderers and maiming and everything else that you name, you ought 

to limit I to felonies. 


1279N.eps
266 

I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last 

word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, again I come back to what this bill 

is designed to do, what the evidence was at our hearing from the 

prosecutors. They don’t intend to go after every burglary. They 

don’t intend to go after every crime. What this bill is designed to 

do is help them to do the same thing with criminal gangs in America that we did with organized crime. And that is to have largescale investigations where we can have the networks brought down 

from these criminal gangs. Many times some of the intimidation, 

some of the threats, some of the terror that they put on witnesses 

and other individuals, is busting in doors, coming in robbing those 

individuals in their homes. 

This bill says—and make it very clear—that we do not mind having a chilling effect on people joining criminal gangs. You know, we 

do not see any public policy reason why we want individuals joining criminal gangs in America. Once they have joined those criminal gangs, this bill still doesn’t get at them. But if they commit a 

criminal gang crime, then it says that we are going to be tough on 

them and they’re going to have an option. They can help cooperate 

with us in bringing down those gang leaders and gang network, or 

they’re going to end up spending a long time in jail. 

I hope we’ll reject this provision and continue with the provisions 

that are in the bill. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman yield back? 

The question is on agreeing to Scott amendment No. 8. Those in 

favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

Noes appear to have it. Noes have it and the amendment is not 

agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Amendment No. 9. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report Scott amendment No. 9. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. 

On page 19, line 5–6 strike ‘‘an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year’’ and insert on line 5——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the amendment is 

considered as read and the gentleman from Virginia is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 

267 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, section 112 of the legislation on page 

19 would change the definition of ‘‘crime of violence’’ to include misdemeanors in some States and Federal drug offenses. Some States 

punish misdemeanors, as I indicated, for more than 1 year, and 

would convert those misdemeanors into crimes of violence that—

where I think we’re aiming at felonies. 

Both Alabama and Massachusetts, for example, a relatively 

minor offense that could involve the risk of force, such as a simple 

assault or resisting arrest are both classified as misdemeanors. In 

Alabama a misdemeanor is punishable by no more than 1 year. In 

Massachusetts misdemeanors are punishable by up to 21⁄2 years. So 

if you committed the same offense in Massachusetts, you’re under 

section 112 as a crime of violence. If you commit it in Alabama, it’s 

not considered under section 112 a crime of violence. I mean this 

is an important distinction because if you get busted for one of 

these you’re looking at 10-year mandatory minimums, and you’re 

converting what are misdemeanors into 10-year mandatory minimums. 

And I would hope that we would be consistent and use the term 

‘‘felony’’ or ‘‘misdemeanor’’ so that we would track what the States 

actually have designated as the important differences in seriousness. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, it doesn’t really much matter on the 

nomenclature that one State may use versus another. I think it’s 

important that we have uniformity here, and what we’re saying is 

if we have a violent criminal act that’s punishable by more than 

a year in jail—but again, one of the things that my friend from Virginia continues to leave out when he’s talking about this, it has to 

be in furtherance of the gang activity. And if they are committing 

a violent criminal act in furtherance of a criminal gang activity, 

then I don’t have very much sympathy with that, and I think this 

bill comes down hard and it comes down tough on them, but it’s 

what we’re going to have to have if we’re going to break down these 

criminal gang networks, and I hope we’ll reject this amendment 

and continue with the bill as drafted. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to Scott 

amendment No. 9. Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 


1279O.eps
268 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 

No. 4. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report Scott amendment No. 4. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. 

Starting on page 17, line 22, through page 18 line 10—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read and the gentleman from Virginia will be recognized for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple venue question of 

where you can bring a capital offense. There is no reason to amend 

the current law, and certainly good reasons not to. Under the bill 

a prosecutor could bring a capital case in a district that only had 

the most remote connection to the crime. If a murder occurred in 

Massachusetts with a gun stolen from Mississippi, the homicide 

case could be prosecuted under the bill in Mississippi. This allows 

prosecutors to forum shop and pick the location where they think 

they’re most likely to obtain a death sentence. This would only exacerbate the racial and geographical disparities that already exist 

in the Federal death penalty, and I would hope we wouldn’t use 

this bill to change the law in venue on death penalty cases. 

Yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we’ll defeat this provision because one of the most important things we’re trying to do 

with this bill is not simply punish the individual who commits the 

crime at the lower-tier level. What we’re trying to do is reach up 

and pull out the gang leaders. 

As our witnesses have testified, as we have tried to make clear, 

these gang leaders know how to work the system. They know how 

to stay away from the States where they’re committing the crimes 

and send other people there to do them. One of the things that we 

think is important is that the prosecutors have the discretion to be 

able to bring these cases where they can compile them in large 


1279P.eps
269 

cases and bring down the networks at one time. We think to 

change the venue provision would limit that ability. I hope we’ll reject this amendment, and I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to Scott 

amendment No. 4. Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reference was made to the Chief of 

Police of the city of Newport News, and I indicated that I was surprised to hear that the Chief of Police was supporting changes in 

the criminal statutes because I had talked to him previously. 

I have a copy of the letter now that was provided for the record, 

and the letter just indicates that the city of Newport News would 

like to get some money to help prosecute crimes. It doesn’t say anything about changing the substantive law. 

I think all police departments would like more money. That certainly doesn’t come as a surprise, but I don’t think the letter should 

be interpreted as supporting any of the underlying substantive 

changes in criminal law. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, my statement wasn’t that the police 

chief wanted to change underlying law. What my statement was, 

that he supported this bill and that he indicated in his letter the 

huge growing gang problem that they had in the city of Newport 

News. 

I have put the—all of the letters of endorsement and support in 

the record, and I think the letters will speak for themselves, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FORBES. I’ll be glad to yield. 

Mr. SCOTT. Where in the letter does he support the bill? I mean 

the only thing he says is, should the bill pass he hopes to get a 

share of the funds. 

Mr. FORBES. Well, he writes in here the city of Newport News 

has a growing gang problem. He identifies the gang problem. He 

talks about the interest that he has in this bill, the need that they 

have for immediate terms of help, and that he had read with interest in the bill that I was introducing in Congress, and, you know, 

again, you can read the letter for what it’s worth. And, you know, 

I’m not relying on the police chief for support or not support of this 

bill. I’m simply putting his letter in the record. It can speak for 

itself. 

270 

But I can tell you that I have numerous letters here from large 

organizations across the country that they state specifically that 

they support every provision in the bill, and that includes not just 

one police chief, but it includes, as I mentioned, major cities, 63 of 

the major cities across the country, their police chief. It includes 

the Fraternal Order of Police. It includes the National Association 

of Police Organizations. It includes the National Latino Police Officers Association, and they even write that they’re going to fight to 

get the bill through, and look forward to fighting for it. 

So you can draw whatever conclusions you want about an individual person, but I simply said that they were supportive of the 

bill. If you don’t believe the letter’s supportive of the bill, draw 

whatever interpretation you want. 

Mr. SCOTT. I’m just reading the bill. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Virginia yield back? 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, just the last line, and this could be 

open. ‘‘Should I be able to assist you in any manner in moving this 

important piece of legislation forward, please contact me.’’ Now 

maybe that’s an indication that he doesn’t support it, but normally 

says, can I assist you in moving a piece of legislation forward, I interpret that to mean that they’re supportive of the legislation, but 

perhaps your interpretation of that phraseology is different, and, 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further amendments? 

Gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I rise to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished Chairman very 

much. Let me indicate that I offer my support for an amendment 

that was offered by Mr. Scott, dealing with the definition, Mr. 

Chairman, of criminal activity for gangs. 

I am concerned generally about the thrust of this legislation, because as I looked at the opening, or the explanation of the majority’s memorandum, it focuses of course on some concerns expressed 

by its author in the State of Virginia. 

My concern about this legislation is whether or not there is sufficient documentation that—it talks about the increase of gang activity over the last decade to 5 years, when we realize that gang activity has actually decreased. There is some concern about a gang by 

the name of MS-13, which I don’t think should be the defining reason for passing this legislation to label all youngsters who have 

gone off, if you will, the beaten track. 

One of the concerns I have is that where is the outreach and education dealing with youngsters who are engaged in gang activities 

for the very reasons we’ve heard over the decades, and that is to 

find friendship, alliances, comfort, guidance, where there is none. 

And so we’re taking a definition to suggest that three or four 

youngsters standing on a street corner, which is something that 

happens frequently in African-American neighborhoods and Hispanic neighborhoods, now ill be indicted as gang proponents, no alternative to their education, no other kind of support system in the 

community but locking them up. 

271 

Prosecuting 16- and 17-year-old who may be involved in a large 

order of individuals who may not actually have perpetrated the violent crime, now they will be subject to indictment and incarceration. 

If my colleagues would look at the Nation’s prison system, and 

as well look at the Federal prison system, they will find that there 

are throngs of individuals languishing in prisons who need not be 

there, obviously on the basis of, in the Federal system, drug crimes, 

in the State system, because they’ve had the three strikes you’re 

out. There’s a great movement to begin to release individuals who 

are nonviolent perpetrators. I know that this speaks to violence, 

but what it does is a broad brush with no solutions and no interest 

in rehabilitating young people who have their lives in front of 

them. 

We’re going to make a gang problem where there is none. Isolated responses to crises is important, but a broad-based approach 

to this whole idea that we have gangs taking over America I think 

is clearly misdirected. And I’d like my colleagues to show me the 

major statistics. Of course we’re going to have a bunch of letters 

from law enforcement. Law enforcement are friends to all of us, 

and all of us have supported increased resources, better laws. 

Whenever you suggest to them that they’ll have another tool allegedly to be able to lock people up, it’s something they might be interested in, but that law enforcement were also interested in the 

Cops on the Beat Program that we extinguished, this Administration, and eliminated the resources for it. 

Law enforcement is also interested in alternative programs for 

juveniles. The DARE programs, where our cities are being forced 

to eliminate the DARE program, where one of the officers approached me on the street and said, ‘‘We’re taking the DARE officers and sitting them in a jailhouse so that we don’t have DARE 

officers interacting with our kids in our community because somebody says that program does not work.’’

So I think that what we’re doing here is padding laws and making enhanced criminal activity out of what may be misdirected juveniles who have no other resources, have no parks that are open, 

have no schools that understand them and are able to educate 

them, and certainly have no alternative programs dealing with juveniles in their community. 

We made fun of the midnight basketball, which worked in some 

communities where kids were out in the street late into the night. 

I know it because I had my parks open as a member of the Houston City Council and I had it opened with people in there and mentors dealing with these youngsters. 

So we may get some degree of excitement, Mr. Chairman, my colleague, out of this legislation, but I can assure you you’re going to 

be making criminals where there are not, you’re not going to be 

solving the overall violent gang program because it’s not narrowly 

focused. You’re just going to round up 3 and 4 people on the street 

corner and tell them they’re bad guys and bad girls. I’d much prefer us invest our monies in helping these young people find their 

dream, get out of their predicament, get away from selling drugs 

because that’s the only alternative. 

272 

That’s not what we’re doing here today. All we’re doing is putting 

a Bandaid on a problem or even making a problem worse, and I 

am sorry that we’re doing so. 

I thank the gentleman and I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Are there further amendments? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 

No. 3. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Clerk will report Scott amendment No. 3. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. 

On page 2, line 8 insert the word ‘‘intention’’ before death. 

On page—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the amendment is 

considered as read. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides for mandatory death 

or life imprisonment for a gang crime if a gang crime results in the 

death of any person. That includes accidents. 

Now, to get the death penalty you have to have at least created 

a grave risk of death with reckless disregard for human life, but 

this provides for death or life imprisonment. If you—if somebody in 

the gang—I mean you can have an—go through a—inadvertently 

go through a stop sign, all of a sudden it’s a gang crime. If there’s 

an underlying gang crime and it results in death—it could have 

been an accident, could have been anything—I would hope that 

we’re not mandating life in prison for what could under ordinary 

circumstances without this bill be an accident. 

I think it violates common sense to have that kind of mandatory 

minimum for an accident, and that’s why I put—want to put ‘‘intentional’’ before ‘‘death,’’ and I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word. 


1279Q.eps
273 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will reject this 

amendment. I think 18 U.S.C clearly covers the situations where 

the death penalty would be applied, and actually covers the state 

of mind that’s involved in there. We don’t need to do any additional 

definitions or change that. It’s already covered and I hope we’ll reject this. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FORBES. I’ll be happy to yield. 

Mr. SCOTT. That’s imposition of death. What about life? 

Mr. FORBES. Well, in the situation with life they have that ability 

to do it if it results in death, and I think if——

Mr. SCOTT. Accident. 

Mr. FORBES. Well, I don’t think it would be. I think they would 

have to have an intention to have done the criminal act that they 

did and have a criminal act that ended up resulting in death. It’s 

not a strict liability provision. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, actually, if the gentleman would yield, actually 

it is. Whoever commits, conspires, conspires, threatens, or attempt 

to commit a gang crime which could be a misdemeanor shall in addition to being subject to a fine, if the gang crime results in the 

death. 

Mr. FORBES. That’s right. 

Mr. SCOTT. It could be an accident. 

Mr. FORBES. He would have had the intention of doing the criminal act. He couldn’t have accidentally done the criminal act. 

Mr. SCOTT. You could be escaping from an armed robbery and go 

through a stop sign. 

Mr. FORBES. And he ended up killing someone. 

Mr. SCOTT. Right, and inadvertently, accidentally killed somebody. 

Mr. FORBES. I mean that’s not my definition of an accident. I 

mean, again, once I say that if he’s, if he’s in that inner circle and 

he commits one of those crimes, he is at that particular point in 

time, if he kills somebody, you look at the victim and tell him——

Mr. SCOTT. Accident. 

Mr. FORBES. I just disagree that it’s an accident. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if it is—if the gentleman yield—if it is an accident, unintentional, is life imprisonment for an accident——

Mr. FORBES. He had the intention of committing the criminal act 

when he was doing it, and if that results in death, I think that at 

this particular point in time he should have a mandatory provision 

to either have life or death. We just disagree. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman yield back? 

Mr. FORBES. Yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

Scott amendment. Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum is 

present. The question is on agreeing to the amendment in the naVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:27 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074
274 

ture of a substitute offerer by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Forbes. Those in favor will say aye. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Those opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. Recorded vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A recorded vote is requested on the 

Forbes amendment in the nature of a substitute. Those in favor of 

the Forbes amendment will as your names are called answer aye, 

those opposed no, and the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Lungren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, aye. Mr. Flake? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, aye. Mr. Gohmert? 

[No response.] 

275 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman? 

Mr. BERMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, no. Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Members who wish to cast or change 

their votes? Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. No, please. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Virginia—excuse 

me—gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentlewoman from California, Ms. 

Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van 

Hollen? 

276 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their vote? If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 ayes and 10 noes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute is agreed to. A reporting quorum is present. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California seek recognition? 

Ms. WATERS. I have an amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Once an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute is adopted no further amendments are in order. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A reporting quorum is present. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California. 

Ms. WATERS. I would ask unanimous consent that my—at least 

one of my three amendments be considered despite the fact that 

you have an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Is there objection to the unanimous 

consent request of the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Water? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I object, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Objection is heard. 

A reporting quorum is still present. The question occurs on the 

motion to report the bill H.R. 1279 favorably as amended. All those 

in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the bill is reported favorably as amended. Without objection the bill will be reported—— Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, recorded vote on the——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A recorded vote is requested on the 

motion to report the bill favorably. Those in favor will, as your 

names are called, answer aye, those opposed no, and the clerk will 

call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Lungren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus? 

277 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, aye. Mr. Flake? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, aye. Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, aye. Mr. Conyers? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman? 

Mr. BERMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, no. Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, no. Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, no. Mr. Schiff? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. 

278 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, no. Mr. Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, no. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? Gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their vote? If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 16 ayes and 11 noes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the motion to report the bill favorably as amended is agreed to. Without objection the bill will be 

reported favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment 

in the nature of a substitute, incorporating the amendments adopted. 

Without objection the staff is directed to make technical and conforming changes, and all Members will be given 2 days as provided 

by the House rules in which to submit additional dissenting supplemental or minority views. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(279) 

1The Supreme Court recently struck down the death penalty for juveniles in Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005). 2 A ‘‘gang crime’’ is defined to mean any federal or state crime punishable by more than 1 

year in prison and includes among others: crime of violence, obstruction of justice, drug trafficking, money laundering, identification fraud, and car and property theft. 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We strongly dissent from H.R. 1279. The legislation would federalize a host of crimes currently and competently handled by the 

states and the District of Columbia; penalize even non-violent drug 

dealing and some misdemeanors as crimes of violence; expand 

without reason the definition of criminal street gang; unwisely 

leave to the sole discretion of the government the unreviewable decision to try juveniles as adults; impose unduly harsh and discriminatory mandatory minimum sentences; and expand the use of the 

federal death penalty to new offenses. The legislation is unnecessary as federal prosecutors are already armed with the Continuing 

Criminal enterprise (‘‘CCE’’) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act (‘‘RICO’’) statutes to combat gang crimes. The 

legislation also may be unconstitutional. Recent Supreme Court 

opinions strongly suggest that this legislation would exceed 

Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. 

H.R. 1279, the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act 

of 2005’’ (Gang Deterrence Act’’) has a deceptive title since its primary purpose is to punish more young people as adults to the extent possible.1 The bill would largely federalize the prosecution of 

criminal street gang members and facilitate the federal prosecution 

of juvenile members. Research shows young people who are prosecuted as adults are more likely to commit a greater number of 

crimes upon release than youth who go to the juvenile justice system. Therefore locking young people up in adult prisons actually 

compromises public safety. Moreover, research demonstrates that 

increasing prison terms does not reduce youth violence. H.R. 1279 

also authorizes substantial appropriations for law enforcement 

teams and technology, while providing nothing in the way of jobs 

or education for at-risk youth. 

DESCRIPTION OF LEGISLATION

H.R. 1279 has several substantive provisions. Title I of the bill 

creates new offenses, broadens existing ones, increases existing 

maximum penalties, imposes twenty-four new mandatory minimum 

sentences, and authorizes the death penalty for a number of offenses. Section 101 of Title I creates new penalties with mandatory 

minimum sentences for committing gang crimes. The term ‘‘gang 

crime’’ is defined in the bill to include violent and nonviolent State 

and Federal crimes, including what are misdemeanors in some 

states.2 The number and nature of ‘‘gang crimes’’ would be vastly 

expanded by Section 112, which would include garden variety state 

280 

3The term ‘‘crime of violence’’ appears in Title 18 over 100 times. As far as we are aware, 

the sponsors of this legislation have not evaluated the effects this change in definition would 

have beyond this legislation. 4Section 103 would eliminate from the carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, the state of mind 

element, ‘‘intent to cause death or serious bodily harm’’ and would broaden the offense described 

in 18 U.S.C. § 924(h), to include transfers of firearms knowing that they will be ‘‘possessed’’ in 

furtherance of a ‘‘crime of violence’’ or drug trafficking crime. 5Section 104 would amend 18 U.S.C. 1958, which currently prohibits travel or use of the 

mails or other interstate facility with intent that a murder be committed, by adding ‘‘with intent 

that [any] other crime of violence’’ be committed. Under Section 112, this would include nonviolent drug offenses, and state offenses that are misdemeanors under the law of some states. 6Section 105 would fundamentally change the nature of the offense under 18 U.S.C. 1959 to 

prohibit less serious conduct, while changing the penalty structure to one of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. It would prohibit less serious conduct in at least three ways. First, 

it replaces a ‘‘crime of violence against any individual’’ with the revised definition of ‘‘crime of 

violence,’’ which includes state misdemeanors and minor federal felonies that merely involve a 

substantial risk that force may be used against the person or property of another, and entirely 

non-violent drug crimes. Second, it replaces the requirement that the underlying offense be in 

‘‘consideration for the receipt [or] promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value 

offenses, like resisting arrest, into the definition of ‘‘crime of violence.’’ 3 The new penalties, with mandatory minimum sentences 

and death penalties, for committing a gang crime depends on the 

seriousness of the offense as follows: (a) death or life imprisonment 

for any crime resulting in death; (b) a mandatory minimum of 30 

years to life for kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse or maiming; (c) 

a mandatory minimum of 20 years to life for assault resulting in 

serious bodily injury; or (d) a mandatory minimum of 10 years to 

life in any other case. 

The legislation has numerous other provisions that enhance existing criminal penalties and apply them to existing offenses and 

much less serious conduct. • Section 102 creates new mandatory minimums for the crime of 

interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering. Section 102 creates a new mandatory minimum of 5 years 

and increases the maximum sentence from 5 to 20 years for intending to distribute the proceeds of or to commit unlawful activity. It 

also creates a new mandatory minimum of 10 years for the intent 

to commit a crime of violence in furtherance of unlawful activity 

and increases the maximum from 20 to 30 years. Finally, the Section creates a new death penalty if death occurs (original life imprisonment). • Section 103 increases the maximum for: carjacking from 15 to 

20 years and creates a new mandatory minimum of 10 years; illegal gun transfers to drug traffickers or violent criminals from 10 

to 20 years and creates a new mandatory minimum of 5 years; conspiracy to defraud the United States from 5 to 20 years.4

• Section 104 provides for increased penalties for use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire and 

‘‘other felony crimes of violence.’’ Specifically, Section 104 creates 

the following new penalties with new mandatory minimums and 

death penalties for the crime: death or life in prison if the crime 

of violence results in death; 30 to life for kidnaping, aggravated 

sexual abuse, or maiming; 20 to life for assault with serious bodily 

injury; and 10 to life for all other cases.5

• Section 105 provides for the following increased penalties for 

violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity: 30 to life for kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse, or maiming (original 30 max for 

maiming; life for kidnaping); 20 to life for assault with serious bodily injury (original 20 max); 10 to life for all other crimes.6

281 

from an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity’’ with a requirement that the underlying offense be merely ‘‘to further the activities of the enterprise.’’ Third, it subjects to the death penalty any offense that ‘‘results in death,’’ rather than only ‘‘murder.’’ 7Section 114 amends subsection A of Section 924(c)(1)(A) of title 18 to include conspiracy; if 

someone conspires to commit a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime and a firearm is involved, the defendant will receive a mandatory consecutive sentence each time the weapon is 

used, carried, or possessed. 8More specifically, Section 106 would add to the Controlled Substances Act a new offense, prohibiting the commission, conspiracy or attempt to commit a ‘‘crime of violence during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.’’ Under the new definition of ‘‘crime of violence,’’ this would 

include offenses that are misdemeanors under the law of some states and non-violent drug trafficking crimes—during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. 9Section 107 would create a new federal crime without a criminal act. Unlike the Travel Act 

as currently written, which requires travel or use of the mails or other facility in interstate or 

foreign commerce and one of several inherently illegal acts, this statute merely prohibits travel 

or use of the mails or other facility in interstate or foreign commerce ‘‘with intent that 2 or more 

intentional homicides be committed.’’ 10The Section creates a new subsection allowing jurisdiction to fall in a district where related 

conduct occurred if the offense affects interstate or foreign commerce, or involves the importation of a person or object into the U.S. 11 Any promotion of this approach by the Department of Justice (DOJ) makes no sense and 

has no credible foundation in light of the advice and counsel DOJ provides to state and local 

authorities on how to address youth violence, including youth gang violence. The DOJ website 

and the annual report for the Office of Justice Programs, promotes just the opposite approaches, 

recommending the appropriate evidence based crime prevention and crime response approaches 

for youth from age 2 to age 22, including responses to serious violent crimes. Nowhere in the 

DOJ protocols is there a call for mandatory minimum sentences or treating juveniles as adults 

as an evidenced-based response. 

• Section 114 increases the penalties including mandatory minimums for the use or discharge of a firearm in a crime of violence 

or drug trafficking crime.7 The Section increases the existing mandatory minimum consecutive penalty for possession from 5 to 7 

years. In addition, Section 114 increases the penalty for discharging from 10 to 15 years and creates a new penalty for wounding, injuring, or maiming at 20 years. 

In addition to adding and enhancing penalties for existing and 

less serious conduct, H.R. 1279 creates the following new offenses: • Section 106 creates a new criminal offense for violent acts committed during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, with the 

following penalties: death penalty or life for the death of any person; 30 to life for kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse, or maiming; 

20 to life for assault with serious bodily injury; and 10 to life for 

all other cases.8

• Section 107 creates a new criminal offense involving interstate 

or foreign commerce or the mail with the intent that 2 or more 

murders be committed, with the following penalties: death penalty 

or life if a death occurs; 20 to life for assault with serious bodily 

injury; and 10 to life for all other cases.9

Section 110 would expand venue in capital cases so as to allow 

prosecutors to forum shop among jurisdictions where any part of 

the crime was committed. That is, Section 110 amends jurisdiction 

of cases punishable by death to include not only the district where 

the offense was committed, but any district involved in the entire 

timeline of the offense, from conception to completion.10

A section of particular significance in H.R. 1279 is Section 115. 

This section authorizes the Attorney General for the first time to 

charge as an adult in federal court a juvenile who is 16 or older 

and commits a crime of violence.11 This Section prohibits judicial 

review of the Attorney General’s decision to transfer juveniles. 

Title II authorizes various appropriations. Section 201 of the bill 

requires the Attorney General, after consultation with the GovVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:27 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074
282 

12 No funds would be authorized for education, job training, or drug treatment. 13See Letter from Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Secretary, Judicial Conference of the United 

States to the Honorable Howard Coble, dated April 1, 2005. 14See Letter addressed to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Representative Conyers dated April 

8, 2005. 15See Letter to Representatives Coble and Scott dated April 4, 2005; see also Letter addressed 

to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Representative Conyers dated April 8, 2005; Letter from Thomas W. Hiller II, Federal Public Defender to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Representative Conyers dated April 21, 2005. 16See Letter from Business Civil Liberties, Inc., Chamber of Commerce of the United States 

and National Federation of Independent Business to Representatives Coble and Scott dated 

April 5, 2005. 17See Letter to Representatives Coble and Scott dated April 4, 2005; see also Letter addressed 

to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Representative Conyers dated April 8, 2005. 

ernors of appropriate states, to designate certain locations as ‘‘high 

intensity interstate gang activity areas,’’ and provides assistance in 

the form of criminal street gang enforcement teams consisting of 

numerous federal agencies, and state and local law enforcement authorities to investigate and prosecute criminal street gangs in each 

high intensity interstate gang activity area. It authorizes 

$5,750,000 for each fiscal year from 2006 through 2010 for this 

purpose. Section 202 authorizes $20,000,000 for each fiscal year 

from 2006 through 2010 for independent state and local efforts.12

Among the organizations that have opposed, or have expressed 

serious concerns with H.R. 1279 are: 

(1) Judicial Conference of the United States; 13

(2) Child advocacy groups including: Alliance for Children and 

Families; American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry; 

Campaign 4 Youth Justice; Child Welfare League of America; Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 

(CHADD); Children’s Defense Fund; Coalition for Juvenile Justice; 

Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators; Federation of 

Families for Children’s Mental Health Girls Incorporated; Juvenile 

Law Center; National Association of School Psychologists; National 

Collaboration for Youth; National Juvenile Defender Center; National Network for Youth; Society for Research in Child Development; and the Youth Law Center; 14

(3) Criminal justice groups including: American Civil Liberties 

Union; American Correctional Association; Federal Public Defender; and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; 15

(4) Industry and business-oriented groups including: Chamber of 

Commerce of the United States, the National Federation of Independent Business, and Business Civil Liberties, Inc; 16 and 

(5) Religious, human rights and civil rights organizations including: Church Women United; Democracy Project; Justice Policy Institute; Legal Action Center; Mennonite Central Committee; Catholic Charities USA; National Alliance for the Mentally ill (NAMI); 

National Council of La Raza; National H.I.R.E. Network; National 

Mental Health Association; Physicians for Human Rights; Presbyterian Church (USA) Washington Office; School Social Work Association of America; United Church Of Christ; Volunteers of America; and Women of Reform Judaism.17

For these and the following reasons, we dissent from H.R. 1279. 

283 

18 Representative Scott offered an amendment ordering the Director of the Office of Justice 

Programs to carry out a study of evidence-based approaches that have proven to prevent crime. 

Prosecuting young people as adults does not reduce youth crime and it is necessary for an agency to further examine this point and to determine the mechanisms that do in fact reduce crime. 

However, this amendment was defeated. 19See e.g. Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn, Charles E. Frazier, Jodi Lane & Donna Bishop, Juvenile 

Transfers to Criminal Court Study: Final Report (Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2002); Green, Ronnie & Geoff Dougherty, ‘‘Kids 

in Prison: Tried as Adults, They Find Trouble Instead of Rehabilitation,’’ Miami Herald, March 

18, 2001; Fagan, Jeffrey, The Comparative Impacts of Juvenile and Criminal Court Sanctions 

on Adolescent Felony Offenders (National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice) 

(1991); Mayers, David L., Adult Crime, Adult Time; Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult 

Criminal Justice System (Saga Publications, 2003); Podkopacz, Marcy R. & Barry Feld, ‘‘The 

End of the Line: An Empirical Study of Judicial Waiver,’’ 86 Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 449 (1996); Coalition for Juvenile Justice, Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying and 

Sentencing Youth in Adult Courts (2005). 20Green, Ronnie & Geoff Dougherty, ‘‘Kids in Prison: Tried as Adults, They Find Trouble Instead of Rehabilitation,’’ Miami Herald, March 18, 2001. 21See e.g. Audi, Tamara, ‘‘Prison at 14: Teenage Girls Serve Time with Adult Inmates,’’ Detroit Free Press, July 10, 2000; Forst, Martin, Jeffrey Fagan & T. Scott Vivona, ‘‘Youth in Prisons and Training Schools: Perceptions and Consequences of the Treatment-Custody Dichotomy,’’

40 Juvenile & Family Court Journal (1989). 22See e.g. Poe-Yamagata, E., and Justice for Some (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2000); see also The Coalition for Juvenile Justice, Childhood on Trial: The Failure of 

Trying and Sentencing Youth in Adult Criminal Court (revealing that over 250,000 youth are 

charged as adults every year and roughly 82% of youths tried as adults are youth of color). 

I. The Transfer Provision Endangers Youth and Public Safety 

Permitting the government unreviewable discretion to transfer 

juveniles to be tried as adults will not decrease crime among youth. 

Study after study have shown that such measures merely increase 

prison rape and assaults against youngsters incarcerated in adult 

prisons, disproportionately affect minority youth, and increase recidivism rates of released youthful offenders. 

First, research conclusively demonstrates that prosecuting young 

people as adults does not reduce youth crime; it in fact increases 

crime, including violent crime.18 Numerous studies including those 

conducted by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, the National Institute of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice), and the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice conclude that youth transferred to 

adult court and tried as adults are more likely to: (a) commit a 

greater number of crimes upon release; (b) commit violent crimes 

upon release; and (c) commit crimes sooner upon release.19 Miami 

Herald study of the Florida experience in 2001 concluded that 

‘‘[s]ending a juvenile to prison increased by 35 percent the odds 

he’ll re-offend within a year of release.’’ 20 Thus, locking youth in 

adult prisons actually compromises public safety. 

Second, juveniles incarcerated in adult prisons are also at greater risk of sexual and physical assaults. Studies demonstrate that 

such youth are five times as likely to report being a victim of rape, 

twice as likely to be beaten by staff, and 50% more likely to be assaulted with a weapon than youth in juvenile facilities, and are 

eight times more likely to commit suicide. 21 Moreover, policies that 

increase the transfer of juveniles to adult court also have a disproportionate impact on children of color. Recent studies demonstrate that eight out of every ten youth admitted to adult facilities across the country were youth of color, and minority youth are 

more likely to be treated as adults than white youth charged with 

the same offenses. 22

284 

23 In fact, the bill provides no exception to non-reviewability for jurisdictional issues such as 

non-age—a fifteen-year-old mistakenly identified as being older—or for young people who may 

not be competent to stand trial as an adult, a high risk scenario as many who engage in risky 

behaviors have mental health problems. 24Since juveniles can already be tried as adults for serious violent crimes, the only purpose 

of this legislation is to try more youth as adults for less serious crimes. Moreover, the legislation 

also allows any other offenses committed that are not covered by the bill to be tried as adult 

offenses, including lesser included offenses, thus putting some perhaps trivial charges in federal 

district courts as well. 25Letter from Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Secretary, Judicial Conference of the United States 

to the Honorable Howard Coble, dated April 1, 2005. 26The adult prison system is approaching full capacity. For example, the nation’s prisons and 

jails held 2.1 million people in mid-2004, 2.3 percent more than the year before. See ‘‘Nation’s 

Inmate Population Increased 2.3 Percent Last Year,’’ The New York Times, 4/25/05. 

Third, H.R. 1279 inexcusably removes judicial review of a prosecutor’s decision to try a youth as an adult. 23 Current law requires 

an in-depth review of multiple considerations by a federal judge of 

whether such a transfer is in the interest of justice. This policy is 

unwise and will increase federal prosecution of youth for minor offenses. Presently, in both federal and state courts, juveniles who 

commit the most serious violent crimes are almost certain to be 

transferred to adult court through use of a judicial waiver. In effecting transfer to adult court, judicial waivers, as opposed to legislative or prosecutorial waivers, are the most common type of waiver device used. That is, the juvenile court judge decides whether or 

not to waive jurisdiction to adult court. However, Section 115 of 

H.R. 1279 takes the waiver decision out of the judge’s discretion. 24

As the Judicial Conference of the United States points out, Section 

115 ‘‘could result in the federal prosecution of juveniles for myriad 

offenses * * *’’ 25 Equally alarming, the legislation removes the 

current prerequisite that the transferred child have a prior conviction for an offense, that would be a serious violent felony if committed by an adult. Thus, a prosecutor could unilaterally decide to 

transfer a youthful offender with no prior criminal record who commits a simple drug trafficking offense, with no judicial review of 

whether such transfer serves the interests of justice. Moreover, a 

move toward federal prosecution causes us great concern because 

as the Judicial Conference acknowledges, ‘‘juvenile offenders require different and perhaps more extensive correctional and rehabilitative programs than adults and * * * there is not a single, federal correctional facility to meet these needs.’’

H.R. 1279 simply takes the wrong approach. Instead of focusing 

on correctional and rehabilitative programs, it attempts to throw 

more youth in crowded adult prisons where these programs are 

lacking. 26 H.R. 1279 reflects the politics of crime where you come 

up with a good slogan such as ‘‘the gang busters’’ bill and codify 

it. Until H.R. 1279, the Judiciary Committee had made great 

progress toward putting aside the politics of crime in favor of sound 

policy in the area of juvenile justice. 

The last three Chairmen of the Subcommittee on Crime and the 

last two Chairmen of the Subcommittee on Children Youth and 

Families of the Education and Workforce Committee, worked on a 

bipartisan basis with Ranking Member Scott, a member of both 

subcommittees, to coauthor juvenile crime prevention and intervention bills in both subcommittees which all the members of both, respectively, cosponsored. These bills were based on the advice of juvenile judges, administrators, researchers, advocates and even law 

285 

27 A report released last year by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a law enforcement-based group, 

points to the effectiveness of many current programs in preventing gangs—at the local and state 

level—and in interdicting violent gang activity. That report, Caught in the Crossfire: Arresting 

Gang Violence by Investing in Kids, offers much useful advice about programs that work with 

the help of federal investment in anti-gang programs through the JJDPA and other entities. 

enforcement officials representing the entire political spectrum. We 

held hearings where a number of witnesses were called by the majority and a number by the minority. They all said the same thing: 

the best way to prevent juvenile crime, and ultimately, adult crime, 

is through prevention and early intervention programs geared toward at-risk youth. 

Moreover, following the Columbine school shooting incident, the 

Speaker of the House and the Minority Leader appointed a bi-partisan task force on youth crime consisting of 12 Republicans and 

12 Democrats. We met for six weeks with each member having the 

right to call witnesses to tell us how to address youth crime and 

violence. They all said the same thing: through prevention and 

early intervention and treatment, or graduated sanctions, programs 

run by local law enforcement, private community based organizations and court personnel. Not one said through treating more kids 

as adults or through mandatory minimum sentences. The two bipartisan bills incorporated this advice and passed both the House 

and the Senate virtually unanimously. Unfortunately, these universally agreed upon crime prevention and early intervention approaches were never funded at their modest authorization levels, 

and even worse, have been cut by more than one-half compared to 

what the funding levels were for prevention and intervention programs when the bills were initially passed. 

While there is no question that violent and dangerous youth need 

to be securely confined for our safety and theirs, incarcerating 

youth with more sophisticated adult prisoners renders them vulnerable to attack and more damaged when they return to society. 

This is tantamount to giving up on them—something we should 

never do. Recent data show a stark reduction in the rate and seriousness of juvenile delinquency in the past nine or ten years. Indeed, as we have learned more from the developmental and brain 

research in recent years, we know that rehabilitative programs 

work better in turning around these young lives and correcting 

their behavior.27

In our view, another preferable approach to youth crime would 

be to emphasize effective correctional and rehabilitative programs 

such as Head Start and Job Corps. Job Corps programs deter 

crime: about 75% of Job Corps participants move on to a job or fulltime study; they earn about 15% more than those who do not participate in the program; and, not surprisingly, Job Corps participants are about one-third less likely to be arrested than non-participants. As the Head Start program demonstrates, early childhood education and job training programs not only reduce crime, 

they save money. Studies of the Head Start program, for example, 

estimate that about $3 is saved for every $1 spent on the program 

by reducing future costs of remedial education, welfare, and crime. 

Moreover, research demonstrates the effectiveness of focused family 

interventions such as: 

286 

28 H.R. 1279 misdirects its attention to mandatory minimums and enhanced penalties instead 

of addressing the real need to prevent gang members from obtaining guns. In this regard, Representatives Conyers and Van Hollen offered an amendment to close a current loophole that exists in the federal gun laws. The amendment would have made it illegal to transfer a firearm 

to anyone that the Federal Government has designated as a suspected or known gang member 

or terrorist. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated. 29See U.S. Sentencing Commission, Special Report to Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System (August 1991). 30 Ibid. 

• Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST)—Chronic juvenile offenders 

who graduated from intensive family multisystemic therapy (MST) 

were one-third as likely to be re-arrested within four years (22%) 

as the graduates of individual therapy (71%); 

• Functional Family Therapy—Youths whose families received 

family therapy (FFT) were half as likely to be rearrested as the 

youths whose families did not receive family therapy (26 percent 

vs. 50 percent); and 

• Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care—The boys randomly 

assigned to treatment foster care averaged half as many new arrests as the boys placed in group-homes (2.6 arrests vs. 5.4 arrests). And six times as many boys in treatment foster care as boys 

in the group homes had successfully avoided any new arrests (41 

percent vs. 7 percent). 

II. Legislation Imposes Ineffective and Discriminatory Mandatory 

Minimums 

H.R. 1279’s heavy reliance on mandatory minimums is a flawed 

approach because mandatory minimums distort the sentencing 

process, discriminate against minorities in their application, and 

waste money.28

Mandatory minimum penalties have been studied extensively. 

The Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have found that mandatory minimums distort 

the sentencing process and have the ‘‘opposite of their intended effect.’’ 29 Mandatory minimums ‘‘destroy honesty in sentencing by 

encouraging charge and fact plea bargains.’’ Moreover, mandatory 

minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity. That is, 

‘‘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 

***’’ and * * * ‘‘require the sentencing court to impose the same 

sentence on offenders when sound policy and common sense call for 

reasonable differences in punishment.’’ 30

In addition, mandatory minimums tend to discriminate against 

minorities. Both the Judicial Center in its study report entitled 

‘‘The General Effects of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: a Longitudinal Study of Federal Sentences Imposed’’ and the United 

States Sentencing Commission in its study entitled ‘‘Mandatory 

Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System’’ found 

that minorities were substantially more likely than whites under 

comparable circumstances to receive mandatory minimum sentences. The Sentencing Commission study also reflected that mandatory minimum sentences increased the disparity in sentencing of 

like offenders with no evidence that mandatory minimum sentences 

had any more crime-reduction impact than discretionary sentences. 

287 

31The cost issue was born out dramatically in a Rand Commission study report entitled ‘‘Mandatory Drug Sentences: Throwing Away the Key or the Taxpayers Money?’’ The study showed 

that mandatory minimum sentences were far less effective than either discretionary sentences 

or drug treatment in reducing drug-related crime and, thus, far more costly than either. For 

example, the study found that the results of spending a million dollars to impose federal mandatory minimum sentences for those arrested for drug dealing would reduce cocaine use by almost 

13 kilograms. If, however, the money was used to arrest, confiscate the assets of, prosecute, and 

incarcerate dealers with prison terms under conventional sentencing schemes where judges 

could determine the sentences based on the seriousness of the offense and the offender’s background, more offenders could be incarcerated and cocaine consumption would be reduced by over 

27 kilograms. 32 Representative Scott offered an amendment that would have deleted the death penalty from 

H.R. 1279. Numerous studies have pointed to a high number of wrongful convictions under the 

death penalty and to the racial and geographical disparities associated with the death penalty. 

The amendment was rejected. Another amendment offered by Representative Scott would have 

required a showing of an ‘‘intentional’’ death before a gang member was exposed to the death 

penalty. The amendment would have prevented a gang member from going to jail for life for 

an accidental death, but the amendment was rejected. 33See Sections 101 (gang crime resulting in death), 102 (‘‘crime of violence’’ ‘‘to further’’ unlawful activity if death results), 104 (travel or use of interstate facilities with intent that ‘‘crime 

of violence’’ be committed if results in death), 105 (death for ‘‘crime of violence’’ if results in 

death), 106 (‘‘crime of violence during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime’’ if results in 

death), and 107 (intent that 2 or more homicides be committed if results in death). 34See American Bar Association, ‘‘Gideon’s Broken Promise: America’s Continuing Quest for 

Equal Justice’’ (2005) (demonstrating that innocent people are wrongfully convicted in our criminal justice system due to the lack of effective defense representation for the poor). In fact, Governor Ryan of Illinois declared a moratorium in his state after 13 people were released from 

death row because of innocence. Ryan wanted assurances that the system was working before 

resuming executions. Some death penalty proponents have argued that the problems in Illinois 

are exceptional. In fact, however the error rate in Illinois is 66%, slightly lower than the national average of 68%. 

Finally, mandatory minimums are extremely costly because they 

keep minor role offenders locked up longer than necessary while 

the worst offenders get no more time than they would have received under a discretionary sentencing system.31 In response to an 

inquiry by Ranking Member Scott’s office, the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission estimated the potential prison impact of H.R. 1279 to 

require an additional 23,600 prison beds over the next 10 years. At 

$75,000 per cell, that amounts to prison construction costs of almost $2 billion. At a cost of $30,000 per inmate for annual upkeep, 

that amounts to an additional $700 million per year and over $7 

billion dollars over a ten-year period. That is an additional $9 billion over and above the billions of dollars per year resulting from 

Congress’ seemingly insatiable penchant for mandatory minimum 

sentences, with far less crime reduction value than much cheaper, 

proven approaches. 

III. The Legislation Unjustifiably Expands the Federal Death Penalty 

H.R. 1279 would create new death penalty provisions at a time 

when evidence continues to expose the fallibility of the system and 

its discriminatory effects.32

H.R. 1279 authorizes the death penalty for numerous offenses if ‘‘death results’’ in six different sections.33 Numerous studies, including those conducted by the ACLU and the University of Michigan among others, have documented the exposure of innocent individuals to the death penalty system.34 Last year, a University of 

Michigan study identified 199 murder exonerations since 1989, 73 

of them in capital cases. The same study found that death row inmates represent a quarter of 1 percent of the prison population but 

22 percent of the exonerated. Since 1973, 119 innocent people have 

been released from death row. An earlier study found that more 

288 

35See ‘‘A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases’’, 1973–1995 (Retrieved April 26, 2005 

from http://justice.policy.net/jpreport/). 36Pub. L. No. 108–405, s. 401–432 (2004). 37See Department of Justice Report, ‘‘The Federal Death Penalty System: A Statistical Survey’’ (1988–2000) (finding numerous racial and geographic disparities in the death penalty and 

revealing that 80% of the cases submitted by federal prosecutors for death penalty review in 

the past five years have involved racial minorities as defendants); see also University of Maryland Report, ‘‘An Empirical Analysis of Maryland’s Death Sentencing System With Respect to 

the Influence of Race and Legal Jurisdiction’’ (concluding that defendants are much more likely 

to be sentenced to death if they have killed a caucasian). 38 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, Mission to the United States of America, U.N. ESCOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 54th Sess., Agenda Item 

10, P 62, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1998/68/Add.3 (1998). 

than two out of every three capital judgments reviewed by the 

courts during a 23-year period were seriously flawed. Moreover, experts reviewed all the capital cases and appeals imposed in the 

United States between 1973 and 1995 at the state and federal levels. They found a national error rate of 68%. In other words, over 

two-thirds of all capital convictions and sentences are reversed because of serious error during trial or sentencing. This does not include errors that were not serious enough to warrant a reversal.35

In fact, due in part to the high number of wrongful convictions 

with respect to the death penalty, Congress passed the Justice for 

All Act of 2004,36 which received strong bipartisan support. The 

Act increases federal resources available to state and local governments to combat crimes with DNA technology, and provides safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions. Title III of 

the bill, the Innocence Protection Act, provides access to post-conviction DNA testing in federal cases, helps States improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases, and increases compensation in Federal cases of wrongful conviction. By increasing the 

number of federal death penalty provisions, H.R. 1279 runs counter 

to the spirit of the Innocence Protection Act and would actually 

prevent the IPA from achieving its full purpose. Even worse, these 

new death penalties are being proposed at a time when the Innocence Protection Act has not even been funded. 

Furthermore, the death penalty has been shown to be racially 

and economically discriminatory.37 Studies which examine the relationship between race and the death penalty have now been conducted in every active death penalty state. In 96% of these reviews, 

there was a pattern of either race-of-victim or race-of-defendant 

discrimination, or both. After its careful study of the death penalty 

in the United States, the United Nations’ Human Rights Commission in 1998 issued a report which rightly concludes: ‘‘Race, ethnic 

origin and economic status appear to be key determinants of who 

will, and who will not, receive a sentence of death.’’ 38

Finally, Section 110 of H.R. 1279 would expand venue in capital 

cases, to make any location even tangentially related to the crime 

a possible site for the trial. This change in law will increase the 

inequities that already exist in the federal death penalty system, 

giving prosecutors tremendous discretion to ‘‘forum shop’’ for the 

most death-friendly jurisdiction in which to try their case. The bill 

would allow the government to bring the death penalty to states 

whose citizens have rejected it, even if the offense was not committed there. It would violate both the defendant’s rights and 

states’ rights to accept or reject capital punishment. 

289 

39 U.S. Const. Art III, § 2, cl.3. 40 U.S. Const. Amend. VI. 41See United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1,6–10 (1998) (venue for money laundering offenses 

was in the district where the money was laundered, not in the district where the money was 

illegally produced); United States v. Salinas, 373 F.3d 161, 163–170 (1st Cir. 2004) (venue for 

passport fraud was in the district where the defendant made the knowingly false statement, not 

where the application was processed). 42See United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553 (2d Cir. 1991) (affirming RICO conviction of 

members of the Westies gang); see also United States v. Espinoza, 52 Fed. Appx. 846 (7th Cir. 

2003) (affirming RICO conviction of member of QC Bishops street gang). 43David R. Truman, The Jets And Sharks Are Dead: State Statutory Responses To Criminal 

Street Gangs, 73 Wash. U. L.Q. 683 (1995). 44 Janice A. Petrella, Equal Protection—What Is In A Name? Sign? Symbol? Gang Members 

and RICO Considered, 34 Rutgers L.J. 1237 (2003). 45See U.S. Constitution, Art. I, s.8, cl. 3. 46 U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). 

Article III of the Constitution requires that the ‘‘[t]rial of all 

Crimes * * * shall be held in the State where the said Crimes 

shall have been committed.’’ 39 This is reinforced by the Sixth 

Amendment, which guarantees the accused a trial ‘‘by an impartial 

jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been 

committed.; which district shall have been previously ascertained 

by law.’’ 40 Venue is constitutional only in the district where the 

acts constituting the charged offense were committed, not in any 

district where activities involved in the ‘‘offense, or related conduct 

* * * occurred.’’ 41

IV. Legislation is Not Necessary 

H.R. 1279 is simply not needed because federal prosecutors are 

already armed with the RICO and CCE statutes to prosecute actual gang crimes. In spite of its name and origin, RICO is not limited to ‘‘mobsters’’ or members of ‘‘organized crime’’ as those terms 

are popularly understood. Rather it covers those activities which 

Congress felt characterized the conduct of organized crime no matter who actually engages in them. In fact, courts have frequently 

upheld prosecutions under RICO for criminal gang activity.42

Gangs were being prosecuted under RICO as early as the mid1980s and by the early 1990s, the CCE statue was also being used 

against gangs engaged in drug trafficking.43 As one recent commentator noted, ‘‘there is a national trend in fighting gang-related 

crime using the RICO statutes, and these efforts have been very 

successful . . . RICO may be used to target the managing forces 

of the gang, as well as its underlings.’’ 44 Thus, if the point of the 

bill is to provide a greater role for federal law enforcement to combat gang violence, such a role already exists. 

V. The Legislation is a Questionable Exercise of the Commerce 

Clause Power 

H.R. 1279 is so intrusive that if enacted into law, it may well be 

found inconsistent with recent Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Congressional power to legislate under the Commerce 

Clause. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides 

that Congress shall have the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.45 H.R. 1279 violates the Commerce Clause because 

it ‘‘completely obliterate[s] the Constitution’s distinction between 

national and local authority.’’ 46 The legislation unconstitutionally 

290 

47 U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). 48 529 U.S. 598 (2000). 49 514 U.S. 549 (1995). 

reaches ‘‘gang activity’’ which does not have the requisite ‘‘substantial affect’’ on commerce.47

Five years ago in United States v. Morrison, the Court invalidated portions of the Violence Against Women Act, stating that 

Congress had overstepped its specific constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.48 Despite vast quantities of data illustrating the effects that violence against women has on interstate 

commerce, the Court essentially warned Congress not to extend its 

constitutional authority in order to, ‘‘completely obliterate the Constitution’s distinction between national and local authority.’’ The 

same concerns were brought in United States v. Lopez, which invalidated a federal law criminalizing the possession of firearms in 

a school zone. In that case, the Supreme Court cautioned Congress 

regarding its limited authority in matters traditionally left to the 

states, Congress’s authority is not as broad.49 This would be particularly true concerning H.R. 1279 which makes federal crimes of 

a host of traditional state offenses. 

In both Lopez and Morrison, the Supreme Court also held that 

federal statutes that attempt to regulate intrastate activities are 

unconstitutional unless the conduct ‘‘substantially affects’’ commerce. For H.R. 1279 to avoid a constitutional problem under these 

cases would require that the criminal street gang itself be an economic enterprise, or at least that its activities ‘‘substantially’’ affect 

commerce. The effect of the new street gang offenses proposed by 

H.R. 1279 on interstate commerce is, like violence against women 

and gun possession in a school zone, too attenuated. Otherwise, virtually all local activity that could be characterized as ‘‘gang activity’’ would be federalized, upsetting the federal-state balance in 

criminal prosecution. The effect of gang activities would unlikely 

meet the ‘‘substantially affected’’ threshold under the Supreme 

Court rulings. 

CONCLUSION

While there is no question that violent and dangerous youth need 

to be securely confined for our safety and theirs, the emphasis of 

H.R. 1279 on the death penalty and mandatory minimums is misplaced. Mandatory minimum sentences have been studied extensively and have been proven to be ineffective in preventing crime; 

proven to distort the sentencing process; and proven to be a considerable waste of taxpayers money. Moreover, the death penalty system has numerous deficiencies, not to mention its discriminatory 

effects. The bill also unwisely advocates for transferring a greater 

number of juveniles to adult court to be tried for youth-related 

crimes. This runs contrary to research which indicates that prosecuting young people as adults does not reduce youth crime. In 

fact, it’s been proven to have the opposite effect. 

In the alternative, we should emphasize prevention programs 

which discourage youth from joining gangs. Research indicates the 

effectiveness of focused family interventions, including functional 

family therapy. Youth whose families received family therapy, for 

example, were half as likely to be re-arrested as the youths whose 

291 

families did not receive family therapy. Unfortunately, instead of 

investing in commonsense programs such as this, H.R. 1279 adopts 

a ‘‘lock ’em up and throw away the key’’ strategy to deal with the 

problem. 

JOHN CONYERS, Jr. 

ROBERT SCOTT. ZOE LOFGREN. MAXINE WATERS. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT. ANTHONY D. WEINER. LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN. 

HOWARD L. BERMAN. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

MARTIN MEEHAN. 

Æ