F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we have got a problem in this country: We are under attack. There are almost 3,000 people that died on 9/11, and we have had to change our entire philosophy on how to deal with this threat. Before 9/11, we treated terrorist acts as a criminal act. And with a criminal act, a crime occurs and people are killed, and we send out the police to investigate. Hopefully, they get enough evidence to indict someone, and then the U.S. Attorney's offices will try them and hopefully obtain a conviction, and the judge sentences them, hopefully, for a long, long time. 9/11 proved we can't do that any more, because there are thousands of lives that are at risk. In this age of suicide bombings and suicide attacks, the people who would be prosecuted usually die in the commission of that terrorist act and take thousands of souls, innocent souls along with them. That is why we have to bring up to date a law that was written in the mid-1970s, and we have done this in a constitutional manner. What we have heard from the other side of the aisle is, no, this isn't good enough and that the perfect is that the enemy of the good. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the perfect defeats the good, then bad will prevail. And if there is, God forbid, another terrorist attack, the blood will be on our hands for not doing the right thing. This bill should be passed. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield portions of that time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5825, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1052, I call up the bill (H.R. 5825) to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5418 to establish a pilot program in certain U.S. district courts to encourage enhancements of expertise in patent cases among district judges. It is widely recognized that patent litigation has become too expensive, too time consuming, and too unpredictable. This addresses those concerns by authorizing a pilot program to improve the expertise of Federal district judges responsible for hearing patent cases. The need for such a program is apparent. Patent cases account for nearly 10 percent of complex cases and consume significant judicial resources. Despite the investment of the additional resources by district judges to these cases, the rate of reversal on claim construction issues remains excessive. One sitting Federal judge characterized the manner that the judiciary employs to resolve these cases as marked by ``institutional ineptitude.'' I would say, parenthetically, that that is a remarkable admission by a Federal judge. The premise underlying H.R. 5418 can be stated in three words: practice makes perfect. Judges who are able to focus more attention on patent cases are more likely to avoid error and thus reduce the likelihood of reversal. The bill requires the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to select five district courts to participate in a 10-year pilot program to enhance judicial patent expertise. The bill specifies criteria that the director must employ in determining eligible districts and then preserves the continued random assignment of cases to prevent the pilot districts from becoming magnets for forum-shopping litigants. Finally, the legislation will require the director to provide both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees with periodic reports to help assess the program's efficiency and effectiveness. Mr. Speaker, the bill does not purport to comprehensively address all of the ill associated with patent litigation, nor does it seek to substantively amend the patient laws or the judicial process. However, the program established by this bill will enhance judicial expertise in this crucial area while providing Congress important information to further improve the administration of patent claims. Mr. Speaker, I commend the two gentlemen from California, Mr. Schiff and Mr. Issa, for introducing this bill. I urge Members to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out what the people on the other side, if they have their way, are going to have as a result. I just want to quote one of the coordinating counsels for the detainees, a gentleman named Michael Ratner, who boasted about what they are planning on doing in public. ``The litigation is brutal for the United States. It is huge. We have over 100 lawyers now from big and small firms working to represent the detainees. Every time an attorney goes down there, it makes it much harder for the U.S. military to do what they are doing. You can't run an interrogation with attorneys. What they are going to do now is that we are getting court orders to get more lawyers down there.'' Now, to put some order in this and to defeat what Mr. Ratner said, the legislation has got to pass. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't listening. There are two types of habeas corpus: one is the constitutional great writ. We are not talking about that here. We can't suspend that. That is in the Constitution, and we can't suspend that by law. The other is statutory habeas corpus, which has been redefined time and time again by the Congress. That is what we are talking about here, and we have the constitutional power to redefine it. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes, and I would like to make a couple of points. First of all, this legislation has to be read in conjunction with the Detainee Treatment Act which was signed into law last year. That law provides for a procedure to review whether or not someone is properly detained as an enemy combatant. So the business of indefinite detention is a red herring. Secondly, this legislation itself creates a number of new rights for detainees and people who are tried before military commissions. Let me enumerate them. There are 26 new rights: A right to counsel provided by the government at trial and throughout appellate proceedings; an impartial judge; the presumption of innocence; standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The right to be informed of the charges against the defendant as soon as practicable. The right to service of charges sufficiently in advance of trial to prepare a defense. The right to reasonable continuances. The right to peremptorily challenge members of the commission. That is something nobody has in the United States against a Federal judge. Witnesses must testify under oath and counsel, and members of the military commission must take an oath. The right to enter a plea of not guilty. The right to obtain witnesses and other evidence. The right to exculpatory evidence as soon as practicable. The right to be present in court, with the exception of certain classified evidence involving national security, preservation of safety or preventing disruption of proceedings. The right to a public trial, except for national security or physical safety issues. The right to have any finding or sentences announced as soon as determined. The right against compulsory self-incrimination. The right against double jeopardy. The defense of lack of mental responsibility. Voting by members of the military commission by secret written ballot. Prohibition against unlawful command influence towards members of the commission, counsel, and military judgments. Two-thirds vote of members is required for conviction, three-quarters is required for sentence to life or over 10 years, and unanimous verdict is required for the death penalty. Verbatim authenticated record of trial. Cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited. Treatment and discipline during confinement the same as afforded to prisoners in U.S. domestic courts. The right to review the full factual record by the convening authority, and the right to at least two appeals, including two in article 3 in Federal appellate court. That is one more appeal than the Constitution gives United States citizens. So what's the beef? There are 26 more rights that are created in this legislation. Vote down the legislation, you vote down all of these new rights. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to yield portions of that time as he sees fit.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This legislation is critical to the national security interests of the United States. The bill creates a fair and orderly process to detain and prosecute al Qaeda members and other dangerous terrorists captured during the war on terror. It also sets clear ground rules pertaining to how we will treat these prisoners in our custody. The way we treat terrorist enemy combatants sends a strong signal to the rest of the world about our commitment to the rule of law. This legislation says to the world that the U.S. rejects torture, rejects cruel and inhumane treatment and rejects other tactics commonly used by our terrorist enemies. It says that we will not subject enemy combatants in our custody, many of whom planned and supported the largest mass murder ever on American soil, to the cruel and brutal treatment they regularly utilize against our soldiers and our civilians. At the same time, this bill also makes it clear to the terrorists and their lawyers that America will not allow them to subvert our judicial process or disrupt the war on terror with unnecessary or frivolous lawsuits. The bill strikes the right balance. It establishes a mechanism that is full and fair, but also orderly and efficient. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the administration began detaining foreign terrorists as ``enemy combatants'' at Guantanamo Bay and instituted procedures to review their status and to prosecute them for war crimes by military commissions authorized by the President. During this time, detainees filed suit in Federal Court to challenge the legality of their detention and of the commissions. The Supreme Court then held in the Rasul case that the Federal habeas corpus statute protected Gitmo detainees. To address Rasul, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which barred habeas and other lawsuits by detainees in U.S. custody, but provided for limited judicial review of DOD detention decisions by the D.C. Circuit. In June, the Supreme Court held in Hamdan that the DTA did not bar nearly 200 habeas corpus petitions and the other lawsuits by detainees pending on the date of enactment, despite clear statutory language and Supreme Court precedents to the contrary. This bill clarifies congressional intent to prohibit any habeas corpus petitions or other lawsuits pending on or filed after enactment brought by any alien in U.S. custody detained as an enemy combatant or awaiting such a determination. The Supreme Court has never, never held that the Constitution's protections, including habeas corpus, extend to non-citizens held outside the United States. In fact, the Supreme Court rejected such an argument in 1950 in the case of Johnson v. Eisentrager. Moreover, in the 1990 Verdugo case, the Court reiterated that aliens detained in the United States but with no substantial connection to our country cannot avail themselves of the Constitution's protections. As a result, any argument that this bill breaks new ground or improperly denies detainees certain constitutional rights is both groundless and misguided. Despite the fact that detainees have very few rights under our Constitution, this bill reflects Congress's statutory determination that they are entitled to an orderly process and a full and fair review of the government's core decisions authorizing their detention by the D.C. Circuit, a respected article 3 court. As we consider this legislation, it is important to remember first and foremost that this bill is about prosecuting the most dangerous terrorists America has ever confronted. Individuals like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, or Ahbd al-Nashiri, who planned the attack on the USS Cole. None of their victims was treated with the kind of respect for human life and the rule of law embodied in this legislation which will apply to them. I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will further yield, this is in the hopes that the Senate will look at this modified bill in prayerful reflection and send it on to the President.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, it means the same thing as the transportation of someone across the State line in violation of the Mann Act.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for a while to yield a minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is fairly simple and straightforward. It says that if a minor woman who is a resident of a State that requires some type of parental involvement is taken to another State that does not have a parental involvement law, it is a crime to do that. And it is as simple as that. Now the only reason why a woman would be taken from a State with a parental involvement law to one that doesn't is to prevent the parents from knowing that the woman is having an abortion. Now we are talking about minors here, girls under the age of 18. A parent is responsible for providing for the health, safety, and welfare of minor children that are either their own children or that they have been named as guardians of by a competent court; and to avoid the parents' responsibility of providing medical care by hiding the fact that the woman is going across a State line to have an abortion is wrong. Now I think a lot of people don't like parental involvement laws. The polling shows exactly the opposite. In my opening remarks, I pointed out that half the people who call themselves liberal Democrats believe that the parents ought to be involved in this decision; and three- quarters of those who call themselves moderate or conservative Democrats feel the same way. I think that this House ought to empower parents to at least know about these decisions, particularly if their minor daughters are taken across a State line; and the way to deal with that issue is to pass the bill. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1039, I call up the Senate bill (S. 403) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. As amended by the rule, the legislation before us contains provisions substantially similar to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which overwhelmingly passed the House in April of 2005 by a vote of 270-157. Laws that require parental notification of a minor's abortion are overwhelmingly supported by the American people. A 2005 poll by Pew Research Center found that large majorities believe that girls under 18 should receive parental consent before an abortion. According to the poll, half of self-described liberal Democrats favor requiring young women to get the consent of at least one parent before getting an abortion, and nearly three-quarters of moderate or conservative Democrats favor requiring parental consent. Across the country, parental consent is required before performing routine medical services, such as providing aspirin, before permitting children to go on field trips or participate in contact sports, or before a minor can get a tattoo or body piercing. Yet people other than parents can secretly take children across State lines for abortion without their parents' knowledge. The legislation we consider on the floor today addresses this absurd dichotomy by establishing clear rules to protect the health and physical safety of young girls, while safeguarding fundamental parental rights. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, or CIANA, for short, contains two central provisions. The first makes it a Federal crime to transport a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion in another State or foreign country in order to avoid a State law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision. Twenty-six States currently have such parental involvement laws. This provision will prevent abusive boyfriends and older men who may have committed rape from pressuring young girls into receiving secret out-of-State abortions to keep the abuser's sexual crimes hidden from authorities. It is crucial to emphasize that the first section of CIANA does not apply to the minors themselves, nor to their parents, nor does it apply in life-threatening emergencies that may require an immediate abortion. The second section of CIANA contains a parental notification rule that applies in cases in which a minor is a resident of one State and presents herself for an abortion in another State that does not have a parental involvement law. In these circumstances, CIANA makes it a Federal crime for the abortion provider to fail to give one of the minor's parents or legal guardian 24 hours' notice of the minor's abortion decision before the abortion is performed. This section protects fundamental parental rights by giving parents a chance to help their young daughters in difficult circumstances. This includes giving a health care provider the daughter's medical history to ensure that she receives safe medical care. The second section of CIANA would not apply if an applicable parental law in the State where the abortion is being performed is complied with. In addition, Section 2 would not apply if the physician is presented with documentation that a court in the minor's home State has authorized an abortion. Further exceptions to this section include if the minor states that she has been the victim of abuse by a parent and the abortion provider informs the State authorities of such abuse, or if a life-threatening or other medical emergency requires that the abortion be performed immediately. As previously noted, the amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 403 is substantially similar to H.R. 748 but also includes clarifying provisions adopted in the other body and other technical changes which further improve the legislation. The amendment would prevent a parent who has committed incest from being able to obtain money damages under the bill's provisions, and it makes it a Federal crime for someone who has committed incest to transport a minor across a State line to obtain an abortion. In addition, the substitute contains an exception to the notification requirement if a parent is physically present when the minor obtains the abortion. The amendment also makes clear that the parental notification need not be provided by the abortion provider personally but by an agent of the abortion provider. The amendment also contains a technical change to the definition of abortion that excludes treatment for potentially dangerous pregnancies and creates a new medical emergency exception to ensure that the legislation will withstand any constitutional challenge. Finally, it makes clear that the bill's provisions apply when State lines are crossed to enter any foreign nation or Tribal lands. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this crucial legislation to protect the health and safety of America's minor daughters. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the Senate bill, S. 403, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The Senate bill has loopholes wide enough to drive a 18-wheeler through. If we are doing something, we might as well do something that means a bit rather than simply passing a piece of paper.