F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have now heard the proposition that passing this bill as it is with the death penalty provisions contained in it is somehow going to render ineffective the foreign policy of the United States. I would draw the attention of the gentleman from Massachusetts, in particular, to House document 107-139, which is a legislative proposal transmitted by the President of the United States to Congress on October 25, 2001, containing the death penalty. Now, under the Constitution, it is the President that conducts the foreign policy of the United States, and if he believed that the death penalty features in this legislation which involved terrorist bombings would somehow hamper his ability to put together an international coalition to fight the al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization, I am sure he would have said so in this message that he sent to the Congress. But he did not. Giving prosecutors the opportunity to ask for the death penalty when there is a particularly heinous crime I think is something that should be an arrow in the quiver of the Justice Department. I regret that the opponents of this legislation have made their philosophical opposition to the death penalty a reason to vote down the implementation of a treaty designed to combat international terrorism such as bombing of public facilities that we have seen occur at our embassies in Africa and which, unfortunately, occur on an almost daily basis in Israel, but I think that the President is right that we should have the option of having a death penalty as one of the penalties, should someone be indicted, tried and convicted. I would urge the membership to support this bill overwhelmingly. 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 cannot believe what I just heard. We are told that we should not put a death penalty in this bill that relates to implementing a convention against terrorist bombings where a death or serious injury occur because the French do not like it. Well, the last time I read the United States Constitution, the elected representatives of the American people legislate for America, not the elected representatives of the French people. This is an issue of our national sovereignty and whether or not we believe that the death penalty is an appropriate option for those who are accused of crimes under the convention designed to combat terrorist bombings. The overwhelming majority of the American people support the death penalty, particularly when it is with respect to a terrorist act. We should not let the parliament of any other country in the world make a determination on what the appropriate penalty is for those who are accused of these heinous crimes and are convicted by a unanimous verdict of 12 jurors who believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crimes that are mentioned. We already have provisions in the United States code providing for the death penalty for terrorist act that result in somebody's death. Without making this law parallel to the other penalties in the United States code, we are setting up a dual system of justice. If a defendant is indicted for violating one section, the defendant is subject to the death penalty. If a defendant is indicted for violating another section of the code as created by this bill, the defendant is not. That, I think, is the wrong message that we ought to send both domestically and internationally with respect to this issue. I remind Members, Mr. Speaker, that since 1972, the death penalty is not automatic upon conviction of a crime. The same jury that has convicted someone of a capital defense is reimpaneled and hears aggravating and mitigating evidence, and makes a determination whether or not the death penalty should be imposed. Who is better equipped to do that but the jurors that listened to the trial on the merits, saw the demeanor of the defendant in court, whether or not the defendant testified in his or her own behalf, decided which witnesses were telling the truth and which witnesses were not, and were able to see the demeanor of every other participant in that trial. I think that the message that we ought to send, purely and simply, is that the elected representatives of the American people will decide what these penalties are, not people in France or in Italy or in Sweden or Germany or anyplace else. I think that the American people want the death penalty for these types of crimes as an option when a defendant is indicted. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and am prepared to close if the gentleman from Virginia has no further speakers.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we have learned in recent months, the only effective way to fight terrorism is to fight it on a global scale. In order to accomplish this, it is important that we build an international framework for combating terrorism in all its forms. The first and most important piece of this framework is international cooperation. Passage of the bill before us today will allow the United States to reinforce the international community's intolerance for and condemnation of terrorist acts and their financing. Mr. Speaker, on December 5, 2001, the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism. H.R. 3275 makes appropriate changes to Title 18 of the United States Code in order to implement these treaties so that they can be ratified by the President. The Terrorist Bombings Convention addresses the most utilized form of terrorism, the bombings of public places, State or government facilities, public transportation systems or infrastructure facilities, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury. H.R. 3275 enacts a new statute which would criminalize these acts if they have an international nexus, such as the bombing of a foreign embassy located in the United States. Nations who are a party to this treaty agree to extradite or prosecute persons accused of such offenses, and also agree to provide assistance in connection with the investigation of such crimes. I am sure everyone is aware that there are already State and Federal laws that criminalize terrorist bombings. This legislation will supplement those laws and close any loopholes that an accused terrorist may try to exploit in a court of law. Furthermore, the legislation covers biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, as well as conventional explosives. The Terrorist Financing Convention addresses a common element of every terrorist act, financing and other support. This treaty recognizes that the financial backers of terrorism are just as responsible as those who commit the terrorist acts themselves. H.R. 3275 makes it a crime to unlawfully and willingly provide or collect funds with the intention or knowledge that such funds are to be used to carry out any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian. As with the Terrorist Bombing Convention, there must be some international nexus with the terrorist financing, such as someone operating outside of the United States. Likewise, nations who are a party to this treaty also agree to extradite or prosecute and assist in criminal investigations. The Terrorist Bombing and Terrorist Financing Conventions follow the general model of prior terrorism conventions negotiated by the United States. These conventions will significantly strengthen the network of anti-terrorism treaties built over the last 30 years by requiring nations to criminalize terrorist conduct identified in the treaties and to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of the offenses. Given the global way that terrorists operate, it is imperative that we make sure that as many countries as possible have comparable laws against terrorism for an effective framework of investigation, extradition, and prosecution. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 3275, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3275) to implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings to strengthen criminal laws relating to attacks on places of public use, to implement the International Convention of the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, to combat terrorism and defend the Nation against terrorist acts, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3525) to enhance the border security of the United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3525, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam 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. 2336, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3484, the Prompt Utilization of Wireless Spectrum Act of 2001. The bill's title aptly describes the critical need for this legislation to turn wireless spectrum, which has been tied up in litigation for years, into a useful, performing asset for the American people. For some five years, these personal communication services spectrum licenses have been the subject of a contentious dispute between the original licensee, an entity known as NextWave, and the Federal Communications Commission, regarding their rightful ownership. In 1993, the Communications Act of 1934 was amended to permit the FCC to sell licenses and construction permits through a competitive bidding process and allow the successful bidders to pay for their licenses in installments. Pursuant to this authorization, auctions of certain licenses were held in 1996. NextWave successfully bid approximately $4.7 billion for a substantial block of these licenses. Subsequently, however, the market value of these licenses became depressed in response to various events, which in turn, adversely impacted the ability of some licensees to obtain funding for their purchases and operations. After making an initial payment of approximately $500 million, NextWave failed to obtain financing for the balance it owed to the government and filed for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in 1998. It thereafter made no other payments to the FCC for the licenses. Eventually, 20 other licensees also filed for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 11. Extensive litigation over NextWave's licenses dragged on for several years. The FCC ultimately canceled the licenses and reauctioned them in January of this year, with winning bids of nearly $16 billion. Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia subsequently found the FCC's cancellation of the licenses violated the Bankruptcy Code and thereby rendering their reauction null and void. In an effort to resolve the various issues presented by the disputed ownership of these licenses, the FCC, NextWave and certain other interested parties have entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement late last month. The agreement provides, in essence, for the transfer of the licenses by NextWave to the FCC, which in turn will convey them to the successful reauction bidders. In exchange for agreeing to transfer the licenses, NextWave will receive a cash payment from the United States government (in addition to which the government will make a cash payment directly to the IRS on behalf of NextWave). As the result of these transactions and certain related payments, the United States will receive approximately $10 billion as net proceeds from the settlement. In response to certain concerns expressed with regard to the settlement agreement, the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary held a Joint hearing last week on this matter. Over the course of that hearing, various issues presented by the settlement agreement and proposed legislation were closely scrutinized, particularly those provisions requiring expedited judicial review and limiting the venue of certain appeals. Largely as a result of that hearing and extensive consultations with the interested parties, I am now confident that the settlement agreement is in the best interest of the public and the national fisc, under the circumstances. H.R. 3484, the Prompt Utilization of Wireless Spectrum Act of 2001 ensures that the settlement agreement will be implemented with the ultimate goal of making these telecommunications licenses available to those who will best utilize them for the American people. Given the time constraints implicit in the pending settlement agreement and the need to tree up these licenses as soon as possible, it is my hope that Congress will promptly consider and pass H.R. 3484.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3295, the ``Help America Vote Act of 2001.'' I am particularly concerned about a problem my home state of Wisconsin will face under section five of the bill and its mandatory requirement that each state implement a statewide voter registration system. The state of Wisconsin does not require statewide voter registration in communities with populations of less than 5,000. This bill will require Wisconsin to comply by requiring registration at the expense of the local governments in communities where registration is not required by law. This legislative provision will place a substantial administrative and financial burden on the state and, perhaps result in an unfunded federal mandate. Mr. Speaker, I also have a significant concern that my constituents in my home state of Wisconsin will be double taxed under Section One of H.R. 3295. That is the section which furnishes states with funds to buyout their punchcard voting machinery. However, Wisconsin has already phased out the use of punchcard voting systems on their own, at the expense of the local counties and municipalities, to the tune of over $650,000. How can it be justified that my constituents will be double taxed to pay for replacing punch card machines? The first tax paid by Wisconsin residents was in the form of local tax revenues and the second tax will be in the form of federal tax dollars. And, let me be very clear here, the local tax revenues spent on punchcard machines could easily have been spent on other important local needs, especially if they knew federal money was on the way. The elimination of these punchcard systems may be a laudable goal, however, it clearly unfair to double tax the residents of Wisconsin in order to pay for upgrades in another state when that state did not determine it was important enough to them to use their own resources to pay for the elimination of punchcard ballots. The basic principle of ``one person, one vote'' is one that crosses party lines, for voting is not a partisan issue, it is an American issue. All Americans want to know that the vote they cast, for the candidate of their choice, will be counted fairly and accurately. Unfortunately, it is also the concern of a great many Americans that widespread voter fraud is diluting or cancelling out the value of their legally cast vote. For example, in Madison, Wisconsin, students from the University of Wisconsin bragged about voting two and three times in last year's presidential election. Coincidently these students recanted their statements when pressed. Perhaps it was when they realized that voting two and three times violated state and federal election laws. However, this is just one minor example of what has been allowed to occur in jurisdictions all around this country without any tangible consequences. Another example of rampant voter fraud can be found when examining the events surrounding the 2000 election in St. Louis, Missouri. There were hundreds of felons, non-citizens, duplicate and dead voters who cast ballots for candidates illegally. And in the city of Philadelphia, there were over 5,000 voters registered at vacant city-owned lots. I strongly believe we must seriously examine allegations of voter fraud and press for the prosecution of those who are found to have violated existing laws. We should also examine existing federal statutes and the Department of Justice prosecution guidelines to determine if stiffer federal penalties and fines and greater enforcement is necessary. It should become routine that when evidence of voter fraud is found, perpetrators can expect to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. For vote fraud is not a victimless crime. It is crime which erodes the integrity of the very system our forefathers put into place to insure the continuance of the freedoms we hold dear. It is time we get serious about insuring the integrity of the election process, and protecting the public trust in the election system of the United States. This legislation does not go far enough to address the issue of voter fraud and it will continue to flourish without significant legislative changes. I fear that once this legislation is passed, this Congress will not come back to examine measures aimed at eliminating voter fraud, proposals such as requiring photo identification at the polls, requiring proof of citizenship and requiring removal of dead voters from current voting rolls are just a few provisions which need to be considered. The individual states across the country have been hard at work in 2001 reviewing their election laws with a fine-tooth comb, identifying the weak spots and potential causes for concern, and, most importantly . . . developing solutions. Reforming election laws is a complex job but it is one that is best left to the states. This hard work will certainly continue into 2002 but look at what has happened so far at the state level: more than 1,770 bills have been introduced, 249 have been passed and 487 bills are still pending. One of the most profound examples of state reform is in Florida where they have passed the most sweeping election reforms of any state so far. These reforms include, among other things, the banning of punch card ballots by providing $24 million to counties to purchase optical scan or electronic systems, $6 million for voter education and poll worker recruitment and training, and $2 million to create a statewide voter registration database. Their bill also provides for uniform ballot design, no-excuse absentee voting and provisional balloting. However, Florida made these changes after consideration of their unique needs and goals without federal mandates from Congress, such as those required under H.R. 3295. And, many other states legislatures have followed suit by passing their own election reform bills without the direction from Congress. As was the case in Wisconsin a few years back, individual states are proving that they are the best able to determine what solutions will work effectively for their unique needs and the focus of election reform should be left to them. Ensuring fair and honest elections by eliminating voter fraud, improving voting techniques, eliminating disenfranchisement, and respecting the constitutional role of the states and localities should not be partisan issues. Our fundamental system of elections is sound, and just as with all things, there is always room for improvement. However, we need to make certain that legislation does in fact provide improvement and not just rhetoric and that Congress is not simply throwing $2.65 billion at this issue so we can claim we've solved all alleged problems.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3209) to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to false communications about certain criminal violations, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 3209, the bill presently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3209 would impose civil and criminal penalties to deter and punish a person or persons for perpetrating a hoax that others could reasonably believe is or may be a biological, chemical, nuclear attack, or an attack using some other type of weapon of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day to this Nation in many respects. It has been 3 months since New York and the Pentagon were turned into Ground Zero and our national innocence was shattered. Since that time, anthrax and the U.S. mail have become synonymous; monthly Federal warnings about new terrorist attacks have become expected; and a heightened level of alertness on the part of the American people has become necessary. In the wake of September 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks, the news media has graphically described the likely devastation caused by chemical, biological, or nuclear attacks on our citizens and on our country. America is in a state of high alert, and this has brought both apprehension and new responsibility. Due to these concerns, Americans are responsibly reporting suspicious behavior and events to the authorities. This is necessary to protect our country and our freedoms. Unfortunately, while our emergency responders and law enforcement are stretched to the limits responding to real threats, they have had to respond to an increased number of hoaxes. These hoaxes are not meant to be funny; rather, they are meant to terrorize and to frighten. These hoaxes distract Federal, State, and local law enforcement, criminal investigators, and emergency responders from real crises and real threats. As a result, they place both the public and our national security at risk. Amazingly, the criminal code does not always cover such crimes. While under current law it is a felony to commit a hoax with regard to tampered food products, it is not necessarily a felony to commit a hoax that scares the public into believing that they have been exposed to a deadly disease such as anthrax, a disease that has been militarized and used to kill innocent Americans since September 11. H.R. 3209, the Anti-hoax Terrorism Act of 2001, closes the existing gap. This is important and necessary legislation, as it will make it a felony to perpetrate a hoax related to biological, chemical, nuclear, and weapons of mass destruction attacks. The person or persons committing such a hoax will be subject to civil and criminal penalties and responsible for reimbursement of any emergency or investigative expense due to the hoax. The Department of Justice and the FBI have testified before the Subcommittee on Crime and made it clear that these types of hoaxes threaten the health and safety of the American public and our national security. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to yield back if the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) does the same.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3030) to extend the ``Basic Pilot'' employment verification system, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work and required employers to check the identity and work eligibility documents of all new employees. Under this Act, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met its document review obligations. The easy availability of counterfeit documents has made a mockery of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Fake documents are produced by the millions and can be obtained cheaply. Congress responded to this dilemma in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 by instituting employment eligibility confirmation pilot programs for volunteer employers that were to last for 4 years. Under the basic pilot, the Social Security numbers and alien identification numbers of new hires are checked against Social Security Administration and Immigration and Naturalization Service records in order to weed out documents containing counterfeit numbers and real numbers used by multiple individuals. Operation of the pilot program commenced in November of 1997 and expires this month. The 1996 Act required that the INS provide a report to Congress on the operation of the pilot programs within 3 months after the end of the third and fourth year in which the programs are in effect. The reports were to, one, assess the benefits of the pilot programs to employers and the degree to which they assist in the enforcement of the rules regarding the employment of aliens; and, two, to include recommendations on whether or not the pilot program should be continued or modified. The INS has not complied. That is no surprise. The agency provided Congress with no report after the third year of operation of the basic pilot program, despite being mandated to do so by law, and there is no assurance that one will be provided within the time limits specified by law after the fourth year of operation. The INS' failure to obey the law and to provide the reports as required by law is unfortunately a frequent failing of this agency. It can only be hoped that once the immigration functions of the Justice Department are restructured and the INS is abolished will such negligence and/or malfeasance be a thing of the past. In any event, Congress must now decide upon the reauthorization of the basic pilot program in the absence of the agency reports, required by law, on the program. We have received word from industry implementing the basic pilot program that it has been a great success and that industry representatives favor a 2-year extension of the program. The committee has received no adverse comment regarding the basic pilot program. In light of the continuing relevance of the original goals of the basic pilot program, and the evidence of its successful operation, we all should support a 2-year extension. H.R. 3030, introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), provides that extension. I can only hope that when we are again called upon to consider the merits of this pilot program we will have in hand an evaluation of the program's operation from the Justice Department. The INS is supposed to enforce the law. The Justice Department is the agency in the executive branch to ensure that the law is being enforced; and unfortunately, the law is not being complied with, and the reports we asked for in 1996 by law have not been submitted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3030; and let me say that I hope at the end of 2 years the immigration service will read laws passed by Congress and signed by the President so that once again the Congress is not put in this embarrassing situation of legislating without required reports. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 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. 3030.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1022, which amends the flag code to make sure that the rules of etiquette for flying the flag of the United States do not preclude the flying of flags at half mast when ordered by city and local officials. This is an omission in the current flag code. On June 28, 2001, the Corrections Day Advisory Group met and recommended that H.R. 1022 be placed upon the Corrections Calendar and the Judiciary Committee passed it by voice vote on November 15. Unfortunately, as of late, we have had increased occasion to visit the rules and etiquette in place for the honoring of public servants. Although at the time which Mr. Doolittle of California introduced H.R. 1022 the calamity of September 11 was far off, the content of this legislation rings more loudly after the events of that day, and affords Congress an opportunity to visit the laws involving recognition of those who provide public service to us all. Currently, under the Flag Code, authority is granted only to the President of the United States or the Governor of any State, territory, or possession to order that the national flag be flown at half staff in recognition of the death of a current or former official of the government, including public safety officers. Under this existing law, in the event of the death of a local official who is chosen to be honored by having the national flag lowered, direct permission must be sought by local officials from either the President or their Governor. The result of the current practice is a chain of communication which is not always timely and can result in the missed opportunity to honor some of these deceased public servants. By passing H.R. 1022 today, we can solve this problem by granting authority directly to the locally elected leaders to call for and approve such recognition. Immediate authorization will be granted at the local level, ensuring that no local hero passes without the community support and recognition which he or she deserves. I urge all Members to support H.R. 1022. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my 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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 1022, the bill under consideration.