F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that my distinguished colleague from Ohio hasn't read the bill, so I will read it for him. At the end of page 7 in the Senate-passed bill, there is a subsection (e) called ``rules of construction,'' which says, in part: nothing in this section shall be construed, one, to prohibit any expressive conduct, including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration, protected from legal prohibition by the first amendment to the Constitution. Two, to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clause of the first amendment to the Constitution regardless of the point of view expressed or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference. That means that if somebody wishes to peacefully protest research on animals, they can do so, as the statute, with the amendment that was adopted on the floor in the other body, specifically prohibits a prosecution for that. Now, let's look at what the people this bill has been designed to go after have been saying: ``I don't think you would have to kill too many researchers. I think that for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save 1 million, 2 million or 10 million nonhuman lives.'' Animal Liberation Press Officer Jerry Vlasak at the 2003 National Animal Rights Conference in Los Angeles. Second: ``Arson property destruction, burglary and theft are `acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause.'' That quote was from Alex Pacheco, who is the director of PETA. Third: ``I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.'' That is Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA at the National Animal Rights Convention `97, June 27, 1997. ``Get arrested. Destroy the property of those who torture animals. Liberate those animals interned in the hellholes our society tolerates.'' That is Jerry Vlasak of the Animal Defense League again on an Internet post of June 21, 1996. ``We have found that civil disobedience and direct action has been powerful in generating massive attention in our communities . . . and has been very effective in traumatizing our targets.'' J.P. Goodwin, Committee to Abolish the Fur Trade at the National Animal Rights Convention in Los Angeles June 27, 1997. Or: ``In a war you have to take up arms, and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It is a war, and there is no other way you can stop vivisectors.'' Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front leader. Finally, another one from Jerry Vlasak: ``If they won't stop when you ask them nicely, they don't stop when you demonstrate to them what they are doing is wrong, then they should be stopped using whatever means are necessary.'' This bill is designed to criminalize whatever means are necessary outside the Constitution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Reclaiming my time, again, I will reread page 7, lines 10 through 21 of the bill that was passed by the other body that says nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct, including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration protected from legal prohibition by the first amendment to the Constitution. Two, to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clause of the first amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference, unquote. Now, what this section says is that nothing in the bill, absolutely nothing in the bill shall be construed to restrict what I have just read. This bill should pass. We should reject the red herrings that we are hearing from the gentleman from Ohio and other opponents. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just like to sum up that on October 30 the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my ranking member, and myself, not opposing this legislation. They did ask for minor changes, but they did not express one concern about constitutionally protected first amendment rights being infringed upon or jeopardized in any way by this bill. Now, if there ever was an organization that really goes all the way on one side in interpreting the first amendment as liberally as it can, it is the American Civil Liberties Union. My friend from Ohio, whom I have a great respect for, is even outside the definition of the first amendment that the ACLU has eloquently advanced in the halls of this Capitol for decades and will do so for decades to come. This is a good bill. I think that all of the fears that the gentleman from Ohio has placed on the record are ill-founded by practically everybody who has looked through this bill, including the ACLU. All I need to do is go back to the quotes that I cited a couple of minutes ago to show why this bill is vitally necessary. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The reason the bill is before us is that the current statute is drafted too narrowly and does not deal with threats by animal rights extremists in inflicting bodily harm, for example, against the publisher of Vogue magazine, because they put ads in depicting people wearing furs.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3880) to provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror.

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 S. 3880 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3880, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. In recent years, some animal rights activist groups have employed violence and intimidation against enterprises that use or sell animals or animal products for food, agriculture, research testing or entertainment uses. In 1992, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act was enacted to provide additional authority to prosecute extremists whose attacks create damages or research losses of at least $10,000. However, the last several years have seen an increase in the number and the severity of criminal acts and intimidation against those engaged in animal enterprises. These groups have attacked not only employees of companies conducting research, but also those with any remote link to such research or activities. This has included employees of banks, underwriters, insurance companies, investors, university research facilities, and even the New York Stock Exchange. Victims have experienced threatening letters, e-mails and phone calls, repeated organized protests at their homes and the blanketing of their neighborhoods with defamatory literature. Some of the more violent acts by these groups include arson, pouring acid on cars, mailing razor blades, and defacing victims' homes. Many of the actions that the groups have engaged in are not addressed by the current animal enterprise terrorism statute, 18 United States Code 43. This legislation would expand the reach of Federal criminal law to specifically address the use of force, violence or threats against not only animal enterprise organizations, but also those who do business with them. S. 3880 would make it a Federal crime to intentionally damage the property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise. The bill would also make it a criminal act to intentionally place a person or family member in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury because of their relationship with an animal enterprise. Additionally, the legislation expands the definition of economic damage to include loss of property, the costs incurred because of a lost experiment or lost profits. It also includes a definition of the term ``economic disruption'' to mean losses or increased costs resulting from threats, acts of violence, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation against a person or entity because of their relationship with an animal enterprise. This does not include a lawful boycott. Finally, an amendment to S. 3880 incorporated during floor consideration in the other body addresses concerns that were raised about the bill's potential impact on lawful protests. S. 3880 clarifies that nothing in this bill shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected by the first amendment, nor shall it criminalize nonviolent activities designed to change public policy or private conduct. Before closing, I would like to recognize the efforts of my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, who introduced a similar measure in this body and has helped raise awareness of this important issue. I believe this bill can help protect law-abiding citizens who are engaged in lawful activities such as research, farming sales, or manufacturing that involves animals or animal products. I urge my colleagues to support S. 3880, so we may send this important legislation to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Certainly.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am happy to yield.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of time. Mr. Speaker, some nights when I drive out of here and go home, I follow some of my Texas friends out of the garage that have a big bumper sticker that says: ``Don't Mess With Texas.'' Tonight is one of the nights where I think we ought to mess with Texas, because what is being proposed here is going to increase the fares of anybody who goes to Texas or decides to go out of the Dallas-Fort Worth area by a significant amount, because it protects monopoly status until 2025. This is the most anticonsumer, antifree enterprise legislation that has come before this House in a long time. At Dallas-Fort Worth, approximately 85 percent of all passengers board an American or American Air regional carrier flight. This keeps American's near monopoly at DFW. And at Love Field, Southwest has a 95 percent market share. Now, without the Wright amendment, both of those market shares are monopolistic. And despite what you hear about how this does away with the Wright amendment, it keeps these monopolies in place until the year 2025. There has been a lawsuit that has been filed against Love Field by people who are standing up for consumers. This legislation extinguishes that lawsuit. The people who filed their lawsuit won't have a day in court to be able to get a fair determination by the judge, because what it does is it provides a backdoor antitrust exemption. Now, we have to ask ourselves as elected representatives of the people whether we are going to allow a private group of local officials and business people in any community to come to Congress to get themselves exempted effectively from an antitrust law. What this bill does is it effectively delegates that power on this issue to the people who came to Congress, and they asked us to ratify this agreement. We shouldn't be delegating antitrust immunity to anybody. That should be determined by the court. So if you believe in the operation of the law and letting people have their day in court, this bill ought to be voted down, particularly if you represent the 42 States that aren't covered by the Wright amendment. 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, in 1972, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the following in the case of United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.: ``Antitrust laws in general, and the Sherman Act in particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise. They are as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free enterprise system as the Bill of Rights is to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms. And the freedom guaranteed each and every business, no matter how small, is the freedom to compete, to assert with vigor, imagination, devotion, and ingenuity whatever economic muscle it can muster.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. The Wright amendment is anticompetitive, there is no doubt about it, and it has increased the cost of long-distance travel to people who live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area by as much as a third as compared to other markets with other airlines. What this legislation does is continue vestiges of the Wright amendment and its anticompetition policy on until at least the year 2025. If we think the Wright amendment is bad, we should get rid of it once and for all, and remember, Congress imposed the Wright amendment back over 15 years ago. Now, what this bill does is it codifies an agreement among private and local government parties that constitute per se violations of the antitrust laws. With limited exceptions, the Wright amendment expressly insulates Dallas-Fort Worth from interstate international air passenger competition from Dallas Love Field. Now, let us stop and think about this because this bill would provide a congressional approval, requiring the demolition of existing gates at Love Field, some of which are privately owned and utilized by airlines to offer additional air passenger service to points across the United States. The agreement also prohibits Southwest Airlines from offering service from the DFW Airport until 2025 and limits the ability of all airlines to offer service from Love Field and maintains a ban on most interstate flights from Love Field to 42 States. Now, that means if you live in the 42 States that this bill seeks to protect, you are going to pay more to come to Dallas-Ft. Worth, no two ways about it. There was a memo leaked out of the Justice Department that says that this agreement, which allows Southwest to stay out of DFW for 19 years, would be a hard core per se violation of the Sherman Act. Now, proponents of this bill will claim that the antitrust laws are unaffected by it and do not be fooled. Why? According to 54 American Jurisprudence 2nd, Monopolies and Restraints of Trade, No. 243, the Hornbook on antitrust law, says: ``In determining whether subsequent Federal legislation has granted immunity from the antitrust laws, a court should reconcile the operation of both statutory schemes, where this is possible.'' A court looking to this legislation will be forced to ignore the antitrust laws because the legislation contains mandatory obligations that the parties engage in contact that violates the per se violations of the antitrust laws. So this compromise is a compromise in name only, and the result is exactly the same, creating implied antitrust immunity by eliminating a cause of action for conduct that presents a clear violation of the antitrust laws. Now, we are going to hear that the Wright amendment is a local issue, and they are right. It is a local issue for the Members of Congress who represent the 42 States whose residents are held captive by the anticompetitive output restriction/cartel that this legislation perpetuates. We have got to have the courage to stand up for consumers, our constituents who vote for us, and adopt the pro-competitive goals of the Airline Deregulation Act by defeating this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to amplify the fact that my Democratic attorney general was just defeated in the primary, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) who I think is right, and his attorney general is wrong.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4772, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act. Members will recall that this bill was debated on Monday and failed under suspension of the rules, and this is the same bill that is being brought up today under a rule. I would thus hope that all of the debate that we had for and against the bill would be incorporated by reference into the Record, and that Members could kind of modulate their arguments because we have heard them all before and we don't need to repeat them, as will I. Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Americans were outraged by a recent Supreme Court decision that severely undermined constitutionally protected property rights. The case of course is the notorious Kelo v. City of New London. In Kelo, the Supreme Court held that a city can take private property from one citizen and give it to a large corporation for economic development purposes. I, along with Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Conyers, led the charge to correct that terrible decision by introducing H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property Protection Act'' which passed the House of Representatives by the overwhelming bipartisan margin of 376-38. However, that bill now languishes in the other body despite overwhelming public support. In any case, the Supreme Court's recent disregard for constitutionally protected private property is unfortunately not confined to the Kelo decision. In the case of Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank, which was reaffirmed last term in the case of San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, the Supreme Court upheld a set of procedural rules that effectively prohibit private property owners from ever getting into Federal court to have their Federal property rights claims heard on the merits. I congratulate again the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for authoring this vitally important legislation that will finally allow property owners to defend their Federal property rights in Federal court. This bipartisan legislation was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by a voice vote on July 12. I hope it will receive the same bipartisan support on the floor today, and urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the author of the bill.

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. 4772 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the ``Sentencing Fairness and Equity Restoration Act of 2006,'' to restore uniformity to Federal sentencing and reaffirm Congress' commitment to protecting our Nation's children. This legislation addresses the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which invalidated the mandatory sentencing requirement of the Sentencing Guidelines (18 U.S.C. section 3553(b)(1)), and struck down the de novo standard for appellate review of any downward departures in 18 U.S.C. Section 3742(e), which was enacted as part of the PROTECT Act in 2003. On March 13, 2006, the U.S. Sentencing Commission issued its report on Booker's impact on Federal sentencing. The Sentencing Commission's report shows that unrestrained judicial discretion has undermined the very purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act, and jeopardizes the basic precept of our Federal court system that all defendants should be treated equally under the law. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are now advisory in all cases, even in those where they can be applied without any judicial fact-finding. Federal judges are now able to impose sentences outside the prescribed ranges, thereby undermining the very purpose of the Sentencing Reform Act to ``provide certainty and fairness in meeting the purposes of sentencing, avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct.'' The PROTECT Act ensured that appropriate sentences would be administered to sex offenders, pedophiles, child pornographers, and those who prey on our children. Thus, I am troubled that the Commission's Report shows that these fundamental sentencing reforms have been effectively eliminated. That is neither good nor acceptable for justice and public safety. Most alarming is the dramatic increase in departure rates for sex offenses including sexual abuse of a minor, sexual exploitation of a minor, and possession or trafficking in child pornography. Downward departures increased for these offenses to levels that had not existed since enactment of the PROTECT Act in 2003. The Sentencing Commission's report shows that in the last year there has been a six-fold increase in below guideline range sentences for defendants convicted of sexual abuse of a minor, a five-fold increase in below guideline range sentences for defendants convicted of sexual exploitation of a child, a 50 percent increase in below guideline range sentences for defendants convicted of sexual contact of a minor, trafficking in child pornography, and possession of child pornography. The report also shows an increase in overall departure rates for nearly all Federal offenses across all Federal jurisdictions, including drug trafficking offenses, firearms offenses, theft and fraud offenses, and immigration offenses. These four offense types comprise 75 percent of all Federal cases annually. According to current sentencing data, the rate of downward departures has not improved. Shortly after the release of the Booker report, I expressed my concern for the increase in departures rates, particularly for sexual offenses, and promised a legislative response. The Sentencing Fairness and Equity Restoration Act directs the courts to impose a sentence at the minimum of the guideline range up to the statutory maximum and reinstates de novo review for all downward departures. The act also requires the Attorney General to create and implement a new policy for the filing of motions for departure for substantial assistance and report this policy to Congress within 180 days of enactment of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this legislation to restore equity in Federal sentencing and to ensure that tough sentences are handed out to all defendants, including sex offenders. The Sentencing Fairness and Equity Restoration Act of 2006

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act of 2006.'' This measure revises the criminal code to update, simplify and consolidate many of the criminal provisions in Title 18 of the United States Code. It has been over 50 years since the criminal code was last revised. The existing criminal code is riddled with provisions that are either outdated or simply inconsistent with more recent modifications to reflect today's modern world. As my term as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee comes to a close, I am introducing this measure to begin the dialogue and process for rewriting the criminal code. It is my hope that this bill will trigger a dialogue and input from other interested parties to develop a more comprehensive re-write. Further, it is my hope that a careful review of the code will lead to even more of a reduction in the ``federalization'' of what many consider local crimes. I am well aware that federal prosecutions constitute only 7 percent of the criminal prosecutions nationwide. We need to ensure that the federal role continues to be limited and that the State and local offenses are not subsumed within an ever expanding criminal code. Through the years, the criminal code has grown with more and more criminal provisions, some of which are antiquated or redundant, some of which poorly drafted, some of which have not been used in the last 30 years, and some of which are unnecessary since the crime is already covered by existing criminal provisions. This bill cuts over \1/3\ of the existing criminal code; reorganizes the criminal code to make it more user-friendly; and consolidates criminal offenses from other titles so that title 18 includes all major criminal provisions (e.g., drug crimes in title 21, aviation offenses and hijacking in title 49). In redrafting the criminal code, I applied several drafting principles: (1) added a uniform set of definitions for the entire title; (2) revised the intent requirements to apply a consistent definition of intent in response to Supreme Court criticisms of intent requirements for criminal offenses; (3) eliminated excess language that confuses, or potentially complicates, use of a criminal statute; and (4) added new headings to make the code more user friendly. I attempted to the extent possible to make these changes policy neutral; however, two general policy changes were made: (1) attempts and conspiracies to commit criminal offenses are generally punished in the same manner as the substantive offense unless specifically stated otherwise; and (2) criminal and civil forfeiture and restitution provisions were consolidated unless a more specific policy was adopted for a crime. I wanted to take a moment to thank the Legislative Counsel's Office and in particular Doug Bellis, the Deputy Counsel of that Office, who devoted substantial efforts to preparing this bill and should be commended for his extraordinary efforts. I recognize that additional input from outside interested parties will be needed, and look forward to working with other Members, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Treasury Department and other parties on this worthwhile project.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, 16 years ago, a bipartisan Congress took significant steps to break down the physical and societal barriers that for far too long kept disabled Americans from fully participating in all aspects of American life. Prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, commonly known as the ADA, disabled Americans were subjected to false stereotypes, experienced discrimination in almost all aspects of society, and were relegated to a form of second class citizenship. The ADA changed this by restoring the full meaning of equal protection under the law and all the promises that our Nation has to offer. Through the ADA and its broad protections from discrimination in employment, State and local government programs and services, places of public accommodation and services provided by private entities, transportation, and telecommunication services, disabled citizens have experienced increased opportunities, higher graduation rates, higher employment rates and lower rates of poverty. Because of this landmark civil rights law, disabled American citizens no longer live in isolation but live as independent, self sufficient members of our communities. However, beginning in 1999, through a trilogy of cases beginning with Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., the Supreme Court has slowly chipped away at the broad protections of the ADA and has created a new set of barriers for disabled Americans. An oversight hearing held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution revealed that certain decisions of the Supreme Court have actually worked to exclude millions of disabled Americans from the ADA's protections, the very citizens that Congress expressly sought to include within the scope of the Act in 1990. The impact of these decisions is such that disabled Americans can be discriminated against by their employers because of their conditions, but they are not considered disabled enough by our Federal courts to invoke the protections of the ADA. This is unacceptable. The bipartisan legislation that I am introducing today will enable disabled Americans utilizing the ADA to focus on the discrimination that they have experienced rather than having to first prove that they fall within the scope of the ADA's protection. With this bill, the ADA's ``clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination on the basis of disability'' will be properly restored and the ADA can rightfully reclaim its place among our Nation's civil rights laws.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?