F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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 to include extraneous material on House Resolution 459, the resolution under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this country is at war against a craven enemy: terrorists. Their main purpose is to kill Americans, whether they are babies or the elderly. We know that this enemy is living here in the United States as well as abroad. As a result, this country is at war with no borders or fronts. Thus, it will often be the first responders, local police, firefighters, emergency responders, that will confront this enemy when we are threatened or attacked at home. First responders, however, cannot adequately prepare and respond to such threats without receiving appropriate threat information, nor will the Federal Government be able to respond appropriately without receiving information from State and local officials. We must have a comprehensive information-sharing system that involves all levels of government. In order to better be able to prevent, disrupt, and respond to a terrorist attack, the Federal Government must improve, first, information sharing; second, analysis of the information; and, third, coordination. All three are interdependent and vital for a strong homeland security system. Congress recognized the information-sharing problems immediately after 9-11 and passed the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act that provided for enhanced investigative tools and improved information sharing for the Federal law enforcement and intelligence communities. The enhanced law enforcement tools and information-sharing provisions have assisted in the prevention of terrorist activities and crimes which further such activities. To protect privacy, the PATRIOT Act, first, limited disclosure to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information, as defined by statute; second, restricted disclosure to only those officials with the need to know the information in the performance of their duties; and, third, maintained the limits on public or other unauthorized disclosure. What the PATRIOT Act did not do was address the need to share homeland security information with State and local officials. The process by which Federal agencies share information with State and local officials is complicated due to the classified and sensitive nature of much of the information and the need to provide the States and localities with this information in an expedient manner. This bill helps to address this perplexing issue. This important legislation was reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary on June 13, 2002, after an extensive markup. It requires the President to establish procedures for Federal agencies to determine the extent to which classified and unclassified, but sensitive, information may be shared with State and local officials on a need-to-know basis. To share this information with State and local officials, Federal agencies must use information-sharing systems that are capable of transmitting both unclassified and classified information in a restricted manner to specified subgroups and be accessible to the appropriate State and local personnel and Federal agencies. During consideration of H.R. 4598, the Committee on the Judiciary adopted an amendment to ensure that the new procedures contained adequate privacy protections. The bill directs the President to include conditions in the procedures that, first, limit the redissemination of such information to ensure that the information is not used for an unauthorized purpose; second, ensure the security and confidentiality of such information; third, protect the constitutional and statutory rights of any individuals who are subject to such information; and, fourth, provide data integrity through the timely removal and destruction of obsolete or erroneous names and information. Additionally, the committee adopted an amendment which was a modified version of H.R. 3285, the Federal Local Information Sharing Partnership Act of 2001, a bill introduced by the New York delegation. This amendment extends the information-sharing provisions in the PATRIOT Act to State and local officials. Currently, Federal officials cannot share surveillance and intelligence information with State and local officials. This amendment allows for such sharing. Current law does allow a Federal Government attorney to disclose, with a court order, grand jury information to State and local officials related to Federal criminal law matters. The amendment expands the type of grand jury information available for sharing to include information pertaining to foreign intelligence, foreign counterintelligence, foreign intelligence information, and domestic threat information. Domestic threat information is not covered in the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. This information needs to be covered, but often it is not clear as to whether threats result from international or domestic terrorism. The amendment also authorized Federal criminal law information to be shared with foreign officials with court approval. The amendment contains safeguards against the misuse of grand jury information. The information may only be disclosed for the specified purpose of preventing and responding to a threat. Additionally, recipients may only use the disclosed information in the conduct of their official duties as is necessary, and they are subject to the restrictions for unauthorized disclosures, including contempt of court. State and local officials will be the first to respond to a terrorist attack. It goes without saying that the Federal Government must be able to provide homeland security information to those officials. H.R. 4598, as amended, will help to disseminate homeland security information quickly and efficiently while protecting classified sources and methods information. This legislation is vital to improving homeland security, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. This ruling treats any public religious reference as inherently evil and is an attempt to remove religious speech from the public arena from those who disagree. This ruling is ridiculous, and I have introduced a resolution today with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) that specifically states that the phrase ``one Nation, under God'' should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance, and that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should agree to rehear this ruling en banc to reverse this constitutionally infirm and historically inaccurate ruling. Members who wish to cosponsor this resolution should contact the Committee on the Judiciary at 5-3190. It is my hope that the House of Representatives will bring it up promptly.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4858) to improve access to physicians in medically underserved areas.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4477 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4477, the Sex Tourism Prohibition Improvement Act of 2002, addresses a number of problems related to persons who travel to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual relations with minors. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, child-sex tourism contributes to the sexual exploitation of children and is increasing. There are more than 100 websites devoted to promoting teen- age commercial sex in Asia alone. Because poorer countries are often under economic pressure to develop tourism, those governments often turn a blind eye towards this devastating problem. As a result, children around the world have been trapped and exploited by the sex tourism industry. While much of the initial attention on child-sex tourism focused on Thailand and other countries of Southeast Asia, it has become disturbingly clear in recent years that there is no hemisphere, continent, or region unaffected by the child-sex trade. While it is difficult to precisely measure the exact number of children affected by sex tourism, experts agree that the number is well into the millions worldwide. Some of the foreign countries experiencing the most significant problems with sex tourism, such as Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Thailand, and the Philippines, have requested that the United States act to deal with this growing problem. For reasons ranging from ineffective law enforcement, lack of resources, corruption or generally immature legal systems, U.S. sex tourists often escape prosecution in those countries. It is in those instances that the United States has an interest in pursuing criminal charges in the United States. Current law requires the Government to prove that the defendant traveled to a foreign country with the intent to engage in sex with a minor. H.R. 4477 eliminates the intent requirement where the defendant completes the travel and actually engages in the illicit sexual activity with a minor. The bill also criminalizes the actions of sex tour operators by prohibiting persons from arranging, inducing, procuring or facilitating the travel of a person knowing that such a person is traveling in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. The legislation will also close significant loopholes in the law that persons who travel to foreign countries seeking sex with children are currently using to their advantage in order to avoid prosecution. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the subcommittee chairman.

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

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

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. 4477) to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to crimes involving the transportation of persons and sex tourism, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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. 3180.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3180 was introduced by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to amend the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact originally approved by Congress in 1969. H.R. 3180 would enable participating interstate school districts to modify the manner in which local school bond issues are considered by the voters. Last year, residents of the Dresden interstate school district, which encompasses the cities of Hanover, New Hampshire, and Norwich, Vermont, voted to approve these changes. The legislatures of New Hampshire and Vermont subsequently ratified these amendments. Rather than imposing a State or Federal solution upon local school boards, H.R. 3180 maintains the primacy of local school authorities by permitting locally-elected officials to avail themselves of the modified balloting procedures contained in the bill only if they elect to do so. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this non-controversial but necessary measure. 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 New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), who is the author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Vermont did not get into dairy policy and upset the cows of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the speaker pro tempore unduly with his remarks, I will yield back the balance of my time as well.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3180) to consent to certain amendments to the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is necessary for two reasons: first, the technology has gotten so good that it is very hard to determine whether the picture that is being transmitted and retransmitted on the Internet is a real child or a computer-created child. That means that if the government cannot prove that a real child was used, then the person who is the defendant will be able to walk out of the courtroom scot-free. Secondly, as has been stated previously, every conviction of child pornographers as a result of the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition decision is placed in jeopardy because at the time the prosecution took place, it was not a requirement that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a real child that was being used for this purpose. So the Ashcroft decision virtually guts our child pornography laws. That is why the Supreme Court has to be given an opportunity to reflect on the consequences of its decision. What this bill does is it attempts to respond to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in a way that we can have constitutional and effective anti-child pornography laws in this age of computers, the Internet, and e-mails. Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member who is concerned about having that type of a law to vote ``aye'' on the motion to suspend the rules.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).