Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1751, Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1751, SECURE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND COURT PROTECTION ACT of 2005 -- (House of Representatives - November 09, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the rule, H. Res. 540, will allow the House to take up legislation to protect Federal judges, court employees, safety officers, jurors, and witnesses.
Unfortunately, we are all aware of the tragic violence committed against judges and their families this year. In one case this past February, Judge Joan Lefkow, a Federal judge from Chicago, returned home to find her husband and her mother murdered. We later learned it had been a retaliation for a earlier court ruling. It is hard to comprehend such a senseless loss.
Clearly, the additional steps we are taking today are important to protect judges and their family members. H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005, increases the penalty for assaulting, kidnapping or murdering a Federal judge, other public officials, and their immediate family members. Further, the bill extends these protections to jurors and witnesses.
For our judicial system to function, the authority and safety of our Federal judges must be ensured. Judges, as well as jurors, should know they are free to make unbiased and sound decisions based on the facts and the rule of law and not on the fear that they may face retaliation for a decision they hand down.
It is equally important witnesses know they will also be secure when testifying. They must know that it is safe to do the right thing and testify before a court of law. For this reason, I appreciate that the Committee on the Judiciary included grants to assist States in operating the witness protection programs.
However, I do have some significant reservations about this legislation. Included in H.R. 1751 are over a dozen new mandatory minimum penalties.
Mr. Speaker, we must protect our judges from harm without impeding their judicial independence. It is the judges and juries who have the facts of each case before them, not Congress. And it is judges and juries who should be determining the proper and appropriate punishment.
Therefore, it should not surprise Members that the Judicial Conference of the United States, the body Congress turns to for nonpartisan recommendations on our Federal judiciary, has expressed a deep opposition to mandatory minimums on more than a dozen occasions in its communications to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, mandatory minimums simply do not work. Rather, they tie the hands of our judges, not allowing them to fit the best punishment to the crime.
I look forward to the debate on these amendments and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov