F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. There are criminal fines in this bill that are $250,000 or double the amount of ill-gotten gain, whichever is greater.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) must want to have more lawsuits. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) wants to have people who retaliated against whistleblowers being thrown in jail because that is a kind of form of witness tampering. Now criminal penalties are not dischargeable in bankruptcy under the current law and under the proposal that has passed both Houses and is in conference. Civil judgments are dischargeable in bankruptcy. So under my plan, the bad folks who have stripped corporate issues of their assets and treated their employees are not going to be able to run to the bankruptcy court to get a discharge. Under what the gentleman from Michigan is proposing, they can be sued civilly, they can lose the lawsuit. The court can enter a huge judgment against them, and then they are back in court, and they will get a discharge in bankruptcy, and as a result there will be no money that will be going out of their pocket. That is the difference between his complaint and my bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) says this bill is a two on a scale of 10. If this bill is a two, then the Senate bill is a one, because in most cases the penalties in this bill are double the penalties in the bill passed by the other body. And this bill creates two new crimes that were not created in the bill that was passed by the other body. Secondly, at least on the Committee on the Judiciary side, the majority and minority staffs worked together beginning on Friday of last week on the provisions of this bill, which was the day after the agreement was reached in the other body on the provisions contained in their bill. And there are at least four provisions in this bill that are patterned after provisions in similar legislation offered by my friend from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) H.R. 4098. They are higher-maximum penalties for wire and mail fraud; an amendment to the Federal sentencing guidelines which pertain in cases where there is actual destruction or fabrication of evidence; and in fraud cases where a large number of victims are involved, the debt is nondischargeable, and bankruptcy, if incurred in violation of securities fraud laws; and, fourthly, tampering with records and otherwise impeding with official proceedings. There the language is a little bit different, but the thrust between the Conyers bill and this bill are the same. Now the other complaint that I have heard from both the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) is that we are speeding too fast on this bill. Well, I pulled up out of the records what the minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, had to say last week. On July 9, the gentleman from Missouri said, ``Now is the time to apply this lesson to corporate reform and go beyond the rhetoric and actually pass strong legislation to protect Americans and to improve cooperate responsibility and accountability.'' Then the next day the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader said, ``Americans need financial reforms that are black and white. If we continue to practice corporate accounting in shades of gray, our economy will suffer. Failing to take action is not an option. We must take bipartisan action to correct these problems now.'' July 10. Now, sometimes we are accused of being too partisan around here. We have listened to what the minority leader has to say. He wanted action taken now, and we are taking action now. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am really befuddled on how Members on the other side of the aisle can come up and say that this bill is inadequate on criminal penalties when the criminal penalties are double those that were passed by the other body, and that we have turned our back on whistleblowers, when this bill provides criminal sanctions against those who retaliate against corporate whistleblowers. If someone would retaliate against a corporate whistleblower, they go to jail. The other body does not do that at all. We have heard comments about the fact that this bill really does not deal with the whole issue of document shredding and other forms of obstruction of justice. Twenty years in this bill, 20 years in jail, that is a pretty tough penalty, and it is drafted broadly enough so that those who do shred documents can be caught in other obstruction- of-justice prosecutions. The bill which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has introduced is only talking about 5-year penalties for these types of offenses. So if this is just a little teardrop, I think my colleague has had a wrong choice of words, because people who violate the law and the crimes that are set forth in this bill are going to go to jail for the rest of their productive lives, and that is a pretty serious penalty. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We provide in our bill the sentencing commission the authority to have sentence enhancements, and it comes right out of the bill the gentleman introduced. And we are going to have a hearing on the gentleman's bill on Friday. That was the date that we agreed upon. So what is the beef? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that the motion to recommit we found out about 15 minutes before it was offered. So that was a shorter period of time than this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman from Michigan says this is a feel-good bill. Anybody that is convicted of the fraud that is discussed in this bill and goes to jail for at least 20 years or 25 years I do not think is going to be feeling very good as they are sitting behind bars. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) last week asked me to schedule a hearing on his corporate responsibility, H.R. 4098, and I agreed. It is an important issue. That hearing is going to be held this Friday. That was the date that we agreed on. I guess the thanks I get for being bipartisan and agreeing to schedule the bill of the gentleman from Michigan is the attack that I just heard from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). The gentlewoman should be more bipartisan in what is said on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has not read this bill. Apparently he wrote his speech before he read the bill. Now this bill is not too weak. It provides twice the criminal penalties than the bill that was passed by the other body. It provides criminal sanctions against those who retaliate against whistleblowers. The other body provides more lawsuits. Every criminal penalty does allow the judge to enter a restitution order. Restitution orders are nondischargeable in bankruptcy. The huge fines in my bill are nondischargeable in bankruptcy. Corporate executives up to $5 million in fines, nondischargeable. Corporations up to $25 million in fines for filing a false statement, nondischargeable in bankruptcy. So what we do is we provide jail terms for the bad actors, we provide nondischargeable fines for the bad actors, and we get tough on those that have looted the pensions and the savings of the employees that have worked dutifully for those corporations where the officers and the boards of directors have not fulfilled their fiduciary responsibility. This is a tough bill because it puts people in jail for a long time. It ought to be passed, and passed now, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) has urged us to address this issue. I urge an aye vote.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5118) to provide for enhanced penalties for accounting and auditing improprieties at publicly traded companies, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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. 5118, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3988 would amend the Federal charter of the American Legion. Current law makes a veteran eligible to become a member of the legion if that veteran has served since ``August 2, 1990 through the date of cessation of hostilities as decided by the United States Government'' and was ``honorably discharged or separated from that service or continues to serve honorably after that period.'' The United States Government has never issued a cessation of hostilities declaration for the Persian Gulf War. For those who are no longer serving, they have discharge papers stating that they honorably served during that period. Servicemen who have served since August 2, 1990, and are still on active duty, have no discharge papers for the period, and are not serving after the cessation of hostilities, but during that period. The amendment would simply change the standard for qualification for membership in the legion by adding the words ``during or'' so that it states ``continues to serve during or after that period'' to make it clear that legion membership is open to active duty personnel who served during Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and all of the operations that followed in Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass H.R. 3988 to make this change in the Federal charter of the American Legion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3988) to amend title 36, United States Code, to clarify the requirements for eligibility in the American Legion.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just let me make it clear, this bill has nothing to do with the immigration law, lest anybody have a misimpression on this. It is legislation that changes the qualification for membership in the VFW, as well as makes it clear that the VFW is a charitable organization. Both of these changes were requested by the delegates to the last VFW annual convention that was held in August of last year in my hometown of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The best way we can help our veterans, I think, is by not confusing the issue. Let us help our veterans by doing what they asked us to do, which is to allow them to expand their membership, as well as to get some State departments of revenue off their back claiming that what the VFW does is not charitable in nature. I think all of us in this Chamber know that the VFW is a legitimate and honorable charitable organization, and I think that we can send the message very clearly by amending their charter to get the State tax departments off their backs so that they can continue to do their very meritorious work.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3838) to amend the charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States organization to make members of the armed forces who receive special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger eligible for membership in the organization, and for other purposes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3482) to provide greater cybersecurity, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3482.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, our society has become technologically dependent. Computers and related technologies have improved every aspect of our lives, our health care, our education, and our security. Unfortunately, this same technology has also facilitated terrorist and criminal activity alike. At the stroke of a key, someone can cause millions of dollars of damage to our economy as well as threaten our national security and the public's safety. This threat is not new; but after the September 11 attacks, the risks are greater. Even prior to the attacks, the Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security was working on legislation to improve Federal law to protect the Nation from cybercrime and cyberterrorism. Last summer, the subcommittee held three hearings on the growing threat of cybercrime and cyberterrorism. Those hearings highlighted the fact that cybercrime knows no borders or restraints and can substantially harm the American people and our economy. The law enforcement officials and private industry representatives at the hearings agreed that better coordination, cooperation and information-sharing were needed as well as stronger penalties for cyberattacks. The U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, which the Committee on the Judiciary adopted much of H.R. 2915, an earlier cybersecurity bill introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith), and began to improve the Nation's cybersecurity, this bill, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002, continues that work. The bill strengthens penalties to better reflect the seriousness of cyberattacks, assists State and local law enforcement through better grant management, accountability and dissemination of technical advice and information, helps protect the Nation's critical infrastructure, and enhances privacy protections. On May 8, the Committee on the Judiciary reported this bill favorably by voice vote. The bill as introduced and reported out of committee contained an authorization for the National Infrastructure Protection Center within the Department of Justice. Since that time, it appears that the center will be transferred out of the Department of Justice into the new Department of Homeland Security proposed in H.R. 5005. Accordingly, the committee has removed that authorization to be consistent with H.R. 5005 in this amended version of H.R. 3482. The bill also contains a few technical changes as well. H.R. 3482, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002, is designed to increase the cybersecurity of our Nation against criminal and terrorist attacks. As one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world, we must deal with a new vulnerability, the interconnectedness of our Nation's economy and national security. I urge Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the subcommittee chairman.

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