mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to h.r. 1751 . 
with several sensational incidents in recent years involving the murders of judges , family members of judges , court personnel , witnesses and other victims , we have seen the consequences of insufficient security for our court operations and personnel associated with the courts . 
all are agreed that enhancement of security for our courts and all persons associated with them is imperative . 
however , the main focus of this bill is not the things that the courts have asked for to enhance their security , but on extraneous death penalties and mandatory minimum sentences which will do nothing to improve the security of our courts or personnel associated with them . 
mr. chairman , i want to acknowledge and thank chairman sensenbrenner for making significant improvements in this bill since our initial consideration of the bill in subcommittee , by removing a number of the superfluous mandatory minimum sentences and death penalties from the bill . 
however , all such provisions were not removed . 
the notion that congress has to direct judges on how to sentence those who harm or threaten judges and their families and others associated with court activities , or that congress has to replace the states in prosecution of murders of state judges and other state officials is absurd . 
the kinds of people we are talking about clearly have not been deterred by death penalties and mandatory minimum sentences already on the books and applicable to them for those kinds of crimes , so they certainly will not be deterred by adding more such mandatory minimums . 
and judges facing such defendants clearly do not need congressional guidance on what the appropriate sentences may be . 
accordingly , i have prepared an amendment which would remove the provisions allowing the federal government , simply on the basis of someone 's salary being paid in part by federal funds , to take over traditional state prosecutions of state murder cases . 
i have also prepared an amendment which would remove the mandatory minimum sentencing in federal cases involving judges , their family members or other court personnel , and replaced them with higher maximums that would allow even greater sentences than the bill allows in cases which warrant it , but would not require sentences which violate common sense . 
the courts have not requested mandatory minimums or death penalties because they do nothing to protect the court . 
nevertheless , here we go again with more mandatory minimums and more death penalties . 
in fact , mr. chairman , the federal courts have consistently and loudly expressed their strong opposition to mandatory minimum sentences . 
through rigorous study and analysis , as well as through their everyday experiences in sentencing major players and bit players in crime , the courts have determined mandatory minimums to be less effective than regular sentencing . 
they have found them to be racially discriminatory in their application . 
they have found mandatory minimums to waste money compared to traditional sentences , and they have found mandatory minimums to be a violation of common sense . 
the judicial conference has written us often to express their opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing and has just written us again with this bill to state their opposition to mandatory minimum sentences as a violation of the systemic sentencing scheme designed to `` reduce unwarranted disparity and to provide proportionality and fairness in punishment. '' that idea is violated with mandatory minimums . 
the judicial conference and everyone concerned supports the grant programs in the bill aimed at strengthening court security and personnel and providing security for persons associated with the courts . 
absent mandatory minimums and the extension of the death penalties , this bill would be one that we could all support . 
unfortunately , mr. chairman , because of the mandatory minimums and death penalty it is not one we can all support . 
united states , washington , dc , november 8 , 2005 . 
dear representative conyers : on behalf of the judicial conference of the united states , the policy-making body of the federal judiciary . 
i am writing to convey its views regarding several of the provisions contained in h.r. 1751 , the `` secure access to justice and court protection act of 2005. '' much of the impetus for portions of this bill arose from the tragic circumstances surrounding the attempted murder of judge joan lefkow of the united states district court for the northern district of illinois . 
although judge lefkow survived the attack , her mother and husband were shot and killed by the assailant , a disgruntled litigant . 
the current bill contains several provisions that are of particular interest to the federal courts . 
section 13 of the bill requires the u.s. marshals service to consult with the administrative office of the u.s. courts regarding the security requirements of the judicial branch . 
while the provision does not extend to a requirement that the marshals service `` coordinate '' with the judiciary , we believe the proposed change is positive and will enhance judicial security . 
section 14 of the bill is positive in that it will help protect judges from the malicious recording of fictitious liens and is supported by the judicial conference . 
section 16 of the bill is of particular interest to federal judges and their security because it will allow them to continue unfortunately , the bill also contains various provisions that expand the application of mandatory minimum sentences . 
the judicial conference opposes mandatory minimum sentencing provisions because they undermine the sentencing guideline regime congress established under the sentencing reform act of 1984 by preventing the systematic development of guidelines that reduce unwarranted disparity and provide proportionality and fairness in punishment . 
the bill also contains a provision that would allow the presiding judge , at all levels of the judicial process , to permit the photographing , electronic recording , broadcasting , or televising to the public of the court proceedings over which that judge presides . 
the judicial conference believes that the circuit councils of each circuit should retain the authority to establish rules for the photographing , recording , or broadcasting of appellate arguments in their courts . 
the judicial conference does not support legislation that would allow trial court judges the discretion to broadcast their courts ' proceedings . 
i appreciate having the opportunity to express the views of the judicial conference in relation to h.r. , 1751 , the `` secure access to justice and court protection act of 2005. '' if you have any questions regarding this legislation please contact arthur white at ( 202 ) 502-1700 . 
sincerely , leonidas ralph mecham , american bar association , governmental affairs office , washington , dc , november 8 , 2005 . 
dear representative scott : we understand that during consideration by the house of representatives of h.r. 1751 , the safe access to justice and court protection act of 2005 , an amendment will be offered by representative jeff flake ( r-az ) to propose a range of changes in the law governing federal habeas corpus review of capital cases . 
the aba strongly opposes this amendment and urges house members to reject it . 
this amendment proposes a number of technical changes in a complicated area of law without the benefit of hearings or any previous consideration by the house judiciary committee . 
it is inconsistent with other pending house and senate legislation and its enactment would create more confusion and chaos in a complex area of law . 
we are particularly concerned about a provision in the amendment that would completely remove federal court jurisdiction for all sentencing phase claims , not just those found harmless by the state courts . 
under this proposal , unless the claim goes to the validity of the conviction itself , it is not cognizable in the federal courts . 
if such a profound change in law were enacted , there would no longer be a federal forum for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase . 
as a result , no matter how inadequate the representation ( e.g. , the sleeping lawyer case ) , the court would be without jurisdiction . 
claims of prosecutorial misconduct relating to the penalty phase would not be cognizable . 
for example , if the prosecution suppressed evidence about the identity of the trigger-man , that would also not be cognizable . 
at a resentencing proceeding ordered by a state court on direct appeal , a prosecutor could commit a flagrant violation of batson v. kentucky by striking all african-americans from the jury , and a federal court would be powerless to do anything about it . 
in short , no matter how unreasonable the state court decision sincerely , robert d. evans . 
american civil liberties union , washington , dc , november 9 , 2005 . 
dear representative : on behalf of the american civil liberties union , we write to express our opposition to h.r. 1751 , the secure access to justice and court protection act of 2005 . 
this legislation would create a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder in federal criminal cases , add numerous other discriminatory mandatory minimum sentences as well as expand the number of crimes eligible for the federal death penalty . 
h.r. 1751 is scheduled for a floor vote on wednesday , november 9 ; we urge you to oppose this legislation . 
the house rules committee has made a number of amendments in order for the floor debate on h.r. 1751 ; we urge your support for the following amendments : ( 1 ) scott ( va ) # 8 : this amendment replaces all mandatory minimum sentences with higher maximum sentences . 
this bill creates many new mandatory minimums and changes the criminal penalties for several existing federal crimes to mandatory minimum sentences . 
for instance , h.r. 1751 would make the punishment for second-degree murder a 30-year mandatory sentence . 
mandatory minimum sentences deprive judges of the ability to impose sentences that fit the particular offense and offender . 
although mandatory minimums were designed to reduce the racial inequalities that too often resulting from judicial sentencing discretion , in practice they shift discretion from the judge to the prosecutor . 
prosecutors retain the power to plea bargain and choose which defendants they will offer plea agreements to in order for those defendants to avoid the mandatory ( 2 ) scott ( va ) # 9 : this amendment strikes the death penalty for the killing of federally funded public safety officers . 
according to the death penalty information center , 121 prisoners on death row have now been exonerated since 1973 . 
chronic problems , including inadequate defense counsel and racial disparities , plague the death penalty system in the united states . 
as a matter of principle , congress should not be expanding the federal death penalty while these problems remain unresolved . 
we urge you to oppose the following amendment : ( 1 ) flake # 2 : this amendment would eliminate federal jurisdiction for all sentencing phase claims in habeas corpus proceedings , unless the claim went to the validity of the state conviction in a capital cases . 
for example , this would result in federal courts not having jurisdiction to review habeas petitions involving claims in state capital cases that were based on ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing phase of the case -- errors that could mean the difference between life and death for the petitioner . 
in addition , this amendment would authorize the u.s. attorney general to determine whether in a capital case a state 's indigent defense counsel system passes constitutional muster . 
the attorney general , our nation 's top federal prosecutor , is not an objective party and therefore should not decide whether states have provided competent defense counsel in death penalty cases . 
for the above-mentioned reasons , we urge members to oppose h.r. 1751 when the house votes on the bill on november 9 , 2005 . 
sincerely , caroline fredrickson , jesselyn mccurdy , 