Paul Kanjorski

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], we could save a great deal of time if the other side would realize what our big worry is here and, that is, they do not address the question of judicial review. As long as judicial review is not addressed and we can infer that you have a right to appeal to a district court if you are dissatisfied with the application of this legislation, every regulatory rulemaking body of the U.S. Government that is not independent is subject to judicial review. That is why it is so important to craft the exemptions in this bill. If it was just a procedural role of a point of order on this floor, we are going to lose that point of order anyway. There is a majority and there is a minority. Our problem, we are arming every corporation and every individual who does not want to comply with a rule or regulation of a Federal agency or U.S. Government to stop the impact of that legislation by merely moving to file an injunction in Federal district court. As I said in committee, if there ever was a piece of legislation that should have had the title of Lawyers Relief Act of 1995, it is this piece of legislation.

Mr. KANJORSKI. If we are to go about drafting legislation on the House floor, we could end up on this bill and many of the other substantive bills that the majority undoubtedly will be properly presenting to the House, spending weeks or months of what some people may consider delay time. But if you are over 65 years of age and you have been discriminated in your job and you go to sue your employer and he is able to walk into court and enjoin you from taking action, that is pretty substantive.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I had a series of four or five amendments that I thought were particularly important because of the possibility of regulations being propounded in the future that could be objected to in court. And since we could not get the judicial review section straightened out, we recognized we had to have certain exemptions. The Chair had suggested that because he was under a calendar direction from the Speaker to proceed with the markup of the bill that we would have an opportunity between the markup and the floor time to consider these amendments. We tried to contact the majority leadership and the majority chairman and we were not successful in accomplishing that. I heard of course yesterday for the first time that this particular amendment would be received. But our problem here was the speed at which the markup was made. No hearings were held. Some of those, myself, a new member of the committee, although having been in the House for 10 years now, was not aware of the process of this new committee, knew this legislation was important and felt that it was not proper for us to draft legislation on the House floor. That is what the committee system is all about.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend on the other side who is an excellent lawyer. He will agree, however, the rapist in California, after the entire prosecution goes through and everything is done, will have a cause of action to go into the Federal District Court to set aside his arrest or conviction based on the fact that he was found in a database that was improperly constituted, because they did not comply with the standards set forth in this act, and if anyone should determine that to be a fact, he will be released.

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

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, what it does is, it gives every convicted sex offender in this country another bite at the apple, when we are talking about the court system that we have.

Mr. KANJORSKI. No. No.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman form Ohio.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, every individual cannot challenge whether or not the estimate of costs of an unfunded mandate were complied with, whether the future costs of the mandate have disproportionate effects on State and local government budgets. That is not the law today. That is not what a felon can do in determining whether or not his name can reside in a database in the Justice Department.

Mr. KANJORSKI. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I do not care how excellent the administration operates or the executive agency operates. Every individual American, if we do not deny the right of judicial review, will have the opportunity to go into court and raise all these legal issues after the conviction of a criminal.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about the point of order. The point of order question is a procedural question in the House in passing legislation. Section 201 is the regulatory power.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about the point of order provisions.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, so that by inference it is open and common practice, when a Federal statute is in play, judicial review usually lies as a matter of jurisdiction in the Federal court; is that not correct?

Mr. KANJORSKI. I do not know if the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] is still on the floor. I wanted to direct something to him. I think, Mr. Chairman, if I may, this amendment really structures what the issue that the minority and myself have been trying to make now for several days, and maybe I could have a colloguy with the chairman of the committee, so that we could get an understanding of where the problem is. Mr. Chairman, as I read the legislation, there is no section denying judicial review, is that correct?

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

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would urge all the Members of the House to perhaps remain on the floor. This is a very important amendment that both the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], my colleague on the committee, and I had put in a package to offer at the full committee markup. Mr. Chairman, at the end of the 103d Congress, this Congress adopted the crime bill, as we all know. A major part of the crime bill called for the creation of a database that would record sex offenders in all 50 States so that that information could be readily available to local police and State police of the various municipalities and States in these United States. It is my understanding that the Justice Department has not promulgated the rules and regulations pursuant to that bill as of this moment, and that potentially that database will not be able to be constructed for several reasons, one of which is that it does not comport with the statement of standards required in this bill. Further, if we get over that objection, that it was previously passed legislation which had not yet had promulgated rules, we run into the problem that for every sex crime in the United States that would come under that jurisdiction, if the sex offender was discovered because of that database, it would give him a cause of action under the judicial review of this bill to allow him to charge that he is improperly charged because of information developed illegally against him and to set aside the regulations as they pertain to him. Now, I know that the Members of the minority party have long been well recognized for the fact that they want to do away with vicious sexual crimes in this country. We also know that in order to protect our citizens and protect the privacy of many citizens and the safety of most of our families, our wives and our children, it is essential that we are able to disseminate multiple sex offenders by having some database exist in this country. If we pass this unfunded mandate as it is presently constructed and written, it will not allow for this database information to go forward. I think that it is this type of exemption that should have been considered at the level of the committee in markup, and in a matter of 15 or 20 minutes the reasonableness and the rationality would have been clearly understood by both the majority and the minority. This is our last attempt to have that database secure so that it can be implemented by proper rules and regulations and not to give every sex offender in this country the opportunity to vitiate his criminal conviction. So I urge all my colleagues to take one step back. This is just good, sane legislation. Let us allow an exemption here for the database that we had originally anticipated and all voted for in the crime bill of the 103d Congress. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the cosponsor of the amendment and a member of the committee on the minority side, the honorable gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter]. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, on January 28, our community will gather to pay tribute to my good friend, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Perugino, to acknowledge his many accomplishments--most recently his appointment as commanding general of the 28th Infantry Division (mechanized) of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard. General Perugino was born in Wilkes-Barre where he attended and graduated from local schools. Joe received his bachelor's degree in business from Cumberland University in Tennesee. His military career began in 1955. He was commissioned a second lieutenant on June 12, 1966, upon his graduation from the Pennsylvania Army National Guard Officer Candidate School. As he rose through the ranks in the National Guard, he successfully completed all of the required courses for artillery staff officers. Joe served as assistant adjutant general of the Pennsylvania National Guard, Fort Indiantown Gap, from August 1988 to 1991; then commanded the 28th Infantry Division Artillery, Hershey, PA. In 1992, Joe was made major general while he was deputy State commander and in 1994, was appointed commanding general of the 28th Infantry Division. Joe's outstanding service has been rewarded with many medals and ribbons, including the Meritorious Service Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal, the Pennsylvania Distinguished Service Ribbon with four silver stars, and the Pennsylvania 20-year Service Medal with two silver stars. General Perugino's service to our Nation is well documented. He also deserves recognition for his dedication to our local community. Professionally, Joe serves as vice-president of the Pennsylvania Gas and Water Co., marketing and gas supply division and as president of Pennsylvania Energy Resources, Inc. He serves as a member of the advisory board of Penn State Wilkes-Barre; chairman of the Luzerne County Community College Foundation; trustee of the Wilkes-Barre and Wyoming Valley Veterans Hospital fund. Joe is also a member of the Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Commerce, National Guard Reserve Officers Association and the Association of the United States Army. He served in a leadership capacity for the Family Service Association, Greater Wilkes-Barre Jaycees, Kingston Businessmen's Association, Kingston Lions Club, and Leadership Wilkes-Barre. In 1982, General Perugino was named a Distinguished Pennsylvanian by the William Penn Society. Mr. Speaker, Joe Perugino has proven himself to be an outstanding leader. It is only fitting that his many achievements and contributions to our country and northeastern Pennsylvania be recognized. I am honored to participate in our community's tribute to him.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Yes, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KANJORSKI. We have no problem with forming intelligence and factual information to be good legislators or good regulators. Our problem is that we do not want to establish the Lawyers' Relief Act of 1995 by giving any American an opportunity to go to this section of the statute and then go and apply it to environmental law or any other law that would require the application of the statute.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Yes, in one moment I will yield to the gentleman when I have finished. We tried in committee to strike out the idea that we would not have judicial review. We have an amendment coming up on that. If we knew that we were going to have a denial of judicial review here and we were not going to make it the Lawyers' Relief Act of 1995, we would be a lot saner and satisfied on this side because we were not going to work havoc on the American regulatory system. Unfortunately, we do not have that assurance that that amendment will pass. We have not had the cooperation with the majority that they will address judicial review, and as I understand it from a simple reading of this statute, if there is a regulatory agency involved charged under this law to put out statements as to the cost factor, regardless of whether they are absolutely and meticulously correct in meeting that standard, anyone can go to court and ask for injunctive relief dealing with that issue.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the city of Philadelphia is mandated to put in a waterworks or cleaning system under existing law and in the future a law is passed that would require the standards to be used by the regulatory agency in the enforcement of that order, and it did or did not comply with the standard, it would allow any corporation or any municipality affected by more than $100 million to move into the Federal court system to bring an injunction. We are faced with the problem over here of trying to find out how large an effect this would have and what the ramifications are.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Absolutely. There is no question about it.