F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Excuse me, one-fifth.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand a division.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. While I applaud the overall goal of this legislation to ensure that America remains competitive in a global economy, particularly in the areas of math and science, research and education, several provisions included in the report remain of concern to me and should be of concern to the entire House. The conference report authorizes $43.3 billion over 3 years. I appreciate that the conferees were willing to compromise by bringing the overall funding closer to the House version, but this agreement remains $20 billion above the House-passed level. Members of this Chamber spoke in favor of the lower level of $24 billion when the House overwhelmingly passed the motion to instruct earlier this week. How soon we forget. It is not fiscally responsible to pass a conference report that nearly doubles the House-passed authorization. We need to foster American science and mathematics innovation, but we shouldn't be breaking the bank to do so. I am afraid this bill will be another example of congressional over-promising and heightening expectations because the appropriators will never come close to funding these amounts. Roughly half of the spending authorization included in the 21st Century Competitiveness Act conference report is designated for the National Science Foundation. When I was chairman of this committee, I fought to increase funding for the NSF because I recognized that this agency is the foundation for new advances in medicine and technology. When the House passed H.R. 2272, we included language to double the NSF's budget over a 10-year period, a goal I support, thereby meeting the President's American Competitiveness Initiative's goal. But the conference report goes well above and beyond this initiative, adding billions of dollars to the bill's final price tag. Finding ways to save is never a fun task, but given that our Federal deficit is expanding by the minute, increasing the NSF budget well above double over 10 years is not in our Nation's best financial interests. If the economy is wrecked due to deficit spending and inability to manage the national debt, all of the good things that the sponsors of this legislation hope will come about will end up being ruined because the economy is not able to sustain what we propose here. I'm also disappointed to see that the grants promoting coal-to- liquids technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing research were not included in the conference report. Language passed by the House would have given priority to grants to expand domestic energy production through coal-to-liquids and nuclear reprocessing research. With energy prices in constant flux, now more than ever we must find ways to reduce our dependence on foreign energy and encourage energy production here at home, also a keystone to continued economic prosperity. A comprehensive, balanced energy policy is necessary to improve and sustain America's energy infrastructure. It's regrettable that the conference report does not reflect this objective. For these reasons, I am opposed to this report. I will support the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing bipartisan legislation, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2007, along with my friend and colleague from California. This legislation would prevent the federal government or any authority of the federal government from using economic development as a justification for exercising its power of eminent domain. The protection of private property rights lies at the foundation of American government. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, ``[G]overnment is instituted no less for the protection of property than of the persons of individuals.'' Two years ago, the Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that ``economic development'' can be a ``public use'' under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The 5-4 decision has substantially weakened the rights of private property owners by handing the government a raw taking power with negligible accountability to the ``public use'' requirement in the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause. The ``public use'' requirement imposed an important limitation on eminent domain power to ensure the government may not force individuals to forfeit their property for the benefit of another private party. However, Kelo transformed established constitutional principles when it permitted the government to seize the private property of one small homeowner and to give it to a large corporation for a private business use in the interest of creating a more lucrative tax base. The dissenting opinion of that case made clear the far-reaching implications of the decision. Justice O'Connor wrote, ``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party. The government now has the license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.'' Houses of worship and other religious institutions that are by their very nature non-profit and almost universally tax-exempt, render their property singularly vulnerable. The NAACP and the AARP faulted Kelo's failing reasoning by stating: ``The takings that result from the Court's decision will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly.'' In response, I introduced H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Restoration Act of 2005 to restore to all Americans the property rights the Supreme Court took away. H.R. 4128 passed with the clear support of this House with a vote of 376-38. Since the Kelo decision, 41 States have passed laws to rein back eminent domain power. Yet, these laws exist on a varying degree, and the need to ensure that property rights are returned to all Americans is as strong now as it was 2 years ago. Like H.R. 4128, this year's legislation also establishes a penalty for States and localities that abuse their eminent domain power by denying those States and localities that commit such abuse all Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 years. This legislation sets up a clear connection between the Federal funds that would be denied and the abuse Congress is intending to prevent while providing States and localities with an opportunity to cure any violation by either returning or replacing the improperly taken property before they lose any Federal economic development funds. Included in this legislation is an express private right of action to ensure access to the State or Federal court and a fee-shifting provision identical to those in other civil rights laws, which allows a prevailing property owner to be awarded attorney and expert fees as part of the costs of bringing the litigation to enforce the bill's provisions. A change in this year's version of the bill includes a provision to protect not only property owners, but also tenants. Tenants who may lose their homes if the government exercises its eminent domain power deserve the same right of action as homeowners. Another improvement to this bill allows the Attorney General to file suit; this will help homeowners and tenants without the means to file a case on their own behalf. I am very mindful of the long history of eminent domain abuses, particularly in low-income and often predominantly minority neighborhoods, and the need to stop it. I am also very mindful of the reasons we should allow the government to take land when the way in which the land is being used constitutes an immediate threat to public health and safety. I believe this bill accomplishes both goals. Property rights are civil rights. I urge all my colleagues to join me in protecting property rights of all Americans and limiting the dangerous effects of the Kelo decision on the most vulnerable in society.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2007, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the 28 preceding years I have served in the Congress.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise before you today to say a few words about one of my longest serving and closest staff, Philip G. Kiko. Phil was one of the first people I hired on my personal staff in 1979, when I was a freshman Member of Congress, and in the years since, he has become a close friend and confidant. During my tenure on the House Committee on the Judiciary, a Committee upon which I have served throughout my tenure in this body and chaired from 2001 to 2006, Phil served the country and Committee ably by pushing through several pieces of legislation that, in my opinion, have made this country a better place. Just look at the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1982, a historic event that reaffirmed the promise of voting equality to millions of Americans. And then, as General Counsel and Chief of Staff to the Committee on the Judiciary last year, Phil led staff negotiations that led to near unanimous House and Senate passage of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act. His unique capacity to bridge partisan divisions to advance the promise of equality our Constitution provides to all of America's citizens best illustrates his unrivaled abilities as a consensus-builder and negotiator. Moreover, the skills Phil demonstrated during consideration and passage of this legislation were applied to advance other legislation whose titles are as familiar as they are historic. Phil was a driving staff force behind congressional passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which has been hailed by child safety and law enforcement groups as the most comprehensive federal child protection legislation in a generation. And who can forget the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 which demonstrated fundamental vulnerabilities in America's law enforcement and intelligence communities. Phil played a central staff role in consideration and passage of the USA PATRIOT and USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, laws that have provided America's law enforcement and intelligence agencies with the tools necessary to detect, disrupt and deter terrorist attacks before they occur on American soil. Phil has also played pivotal roles in congressional passage of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, the Class Action Fairness Act, REAL ID Act, and other legislation that will distinguish his years of service to the Committee as among the most productive and meaningful in our Nation's history. Madam Speaker, most Americans have probably never heard of Phil Kiko, but they have heard of the aforementioned bills he has worked on, and they have certainly been affected by them in some way, shape or form. Phil's tenacity and passion for working on ideals that he believed to be right and just often pushed him and those he worked with, to spend many a late night in the Capitol--but the benefits of his dedication went ultimately to Americans like you and me. It is never easy to say goodbye, especially to one who has been by my side for decades. But I also know that there comes a time when we must all simply move on. That time has come for Phil Kiko, and so I stand before you, and the rest of my colleagues, and I ask you all to join me in wishing Phil all the best, as he takes his next step. On behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary, the House of Representatives, and myself, I thank you Phil, for all your service to this Nation, and congratulate you on a job well done.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this bill was unconstitutional for the reasons stated by my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions), but I am afraid that the way this bill treats the at-large seat in Utah makes it even more unconstitutional. Not since the Supreme Court issued its string of one person, one vote decisions in the 1960s has Congress seen fit to amend the law to allow both at-large and district elections for Members of the House of Representatives. This bill does that and, in effect, gives the citizens of Utah the right to vote for two Representatives, one in the district and one at-large, which is something that is denied to every other citizen of the United States. Even if this is not a violation of equal protection under the law, I think that it is extremely bad policy because it is in derogation from what those of us who have fought to enact and reenact the Voting Rights Act have attempted to do, and the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that at-large elections are in derogation of giving minorities effective representation not just in Congress, but for local legislative bodies like city councils and county commissions. I fear that if this act is held constitutional with an at-large seat in Utah, that precedent will be used in jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act to once again go back to at-large elections and to diminish the votes that minorities have enjoyed ever since the 1982 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. Finally, having an at-large seat in Utah is going to make it probably more difficult to uphold this law, and the reason I say that is that if this law is held unconstitutional with four Members from Utah being elected by district, effectively a quarter of the people of Utah will be disenfranchised since the bill has a nonseverability clause, and thus, if D.C. brings the bill down, one-quarter of the people of Utah will have no representative in Congress. That would be a powerful argument to uphold the constitutionality of this bill, and one that cannot be avoided. Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules Committee decided to play partisan politics. They are jeopardizing the litigation of this legislation. I would hope that they would think twice, and they would vote this rule down. I was prepared to support this legislation both in this Congress and the last Congress if Utah had four Representatives elected by districts. What you have done here, you have lost me. There is still time to correct this, and I would hope that the rule would be rejected. General Leave

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, the Judiciary Committee is supposed to be the legislative guardian of the Constitution. Unfortunately in this instance, the majority gets an F. This bill is fraught with constitutional questions. All I need to do is to go back to the report that was issued by then- Chairman Peter Rodino, a Democratic and a liberal icon, when he reported out a constitutional amendment enfranchising the District of Columbia in 1978. That committee report clearly said that giving a vote to the representative of the District of Columbia in this House could not be done statutorily. And that is exactly what is happening today. And not only can't it be done statutorily, but the Rules Committee last night played a partisan card. It rejected all proposed amendments, including constructive amendments that eliminate some of the legal and constitutional problems relating to the at-large seat in Utah, as well as an amendment offered by my friend from Texas (Mr. Smith) to have an expedited review of the United States Supreme Court, a review that we gave to the McCain- Feingold law on campaign finance. There are constitutional questions on this issue. And in the year 2000, the Federal court of D.C. expressly said that, ``We conclude from our analysis that the text of the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a State for purposes of apportionment of congressional representatives.'' That case was Adams v. Clinton that was decided in the year 2000. Now, that was the more recent case than the Tidewater case which is being used by the proponents of this legislation as saying that the District clause allows us to do this. Now, rather than enfranchising the citizens of the District in a constitutionally questionable manner, why not do it in a way that is very clearly constitutional? There are three ways to do this, all of which have been rejected by the majority. One is to repropose the amendment to the Constitution which failed in 1978. Second is to admit the non-Federal part of the District as a separate State, with two Senators and two Representatives. That was rejected in 1993, but could be reintroduced. And the third is to retrocede the non-Federal part of the District to Maryland. We can do it the right way. Those are the right ways; this is the wrong way.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I mourn the loss of my friend and colleague, Congressman Charlie Norwood. Charlie was a tenacious fighter in Congress who would not back down from his beliefs. More important than his work in the House of Representatives, he was a dedicated husband, loving father of two sons and a grandfather of four. Charlie served his country proudly in Vietnam and was a decorated veteran. Upon his return to the states, he practiced dentistry and helped countless Georgians. In 1994, he brought his compassion and conservative values to Washington. I soon learned that Charlie Norwood was a man of impressive character and conviction, with a Southern charm and heart of gold. Charlie Norwood was a fervent believer in tackling the problem of illegal immigration, and I enjoyed working with him to pass immigration reform. Charlie made a valuable contribution to the House's immigration bill in the 109th Congress by including parts of his CLEAR Act in the legislation. I shared his belief that we should direct local law enforcement to help us apprehend the illegal immigrants in this country who are criminals. Charlie courageously battled cancer for a number of years, and he was an inspiration to many, including his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am pleased that I had the opportunity to work with Charlie, and my wife Cheryl and I extend our deepest sympathies to Gloria Norwood and their entire family.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in fervent support of the brave men and women of our Armed Forces currently serving in Iraq. While American soldiers and Marines courageously risk their lives to confront a determined enemy in Iraq, the Democrat leadership in Congress offers this resolution. The spineless resolution under consideration would undermine our military commanders' plan for victory in this ongoing struggle. This act of political posturing strikes me as inconsistent with pledges of support for our troops. We cannot simultaneously claim to support the troops while calling into question the validity of their mission. The question, Madam Speaker, quite simply, is this: to fund or not to fund. If this Congress intends to provide our service men and women with the funds they need to achieve their mission, and we must, it follows that funding ought to go hand-in-hand with resolute commitment in support of their current mission. If not this plan, what plan? Before you answer that, recognize that Congress is not, and has never been, tasked with administering a war. No successful war in the history of mankind has ever been managed by the legislative branch of any government. And no credible alternative for victory in Iraq has emerged from any member of this institution. I find it curious that not a single Senator opposed the confirmation of General Petraeus as Commanding General of our troops in Iraq. General Petraeus is the coauthor of the Army's new official counterinsurgency doctrine that this resolution seeks to undermine. Yet, only weeks later, this body seeks to pull the rug out from under General Petraeus through this resolution. Such political posturing is shameful, but unfortunately it is anything but petty, as the consequences could be deadly. Members of Congress may be able to convince themselves of all sorts of contradictory positions and logical inconsistencies through double- speak, but our service members know weakness when they see it. Thank God our troops are men and women of resolve and integrity. If you want to endanger even more Americans in the field and usher in an American defeat in Iraq, the surest way to do so is to demonstrate a lack of commitment from this House, and therein embolden the enemies our troops are battling right now. I don't believe that's what anybody in this body wants, so I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of support for this ill- conceived resolution. This is a time of war, one that is not of our choosing. Militant Islamists have been at war with America for decades, and they have grown more dangerous each year, as we tragically learned a little more than five years ago. With overwhelming bipartisan determination, we voted to authorize military action in Iraq in 2002. Retreat from our current mission would communicate to Al Qaeda and jihadists around the world that the United States is fainthearted, and we could expect more horrific attacks on American soil than we saw on 9/11. Let me be clear--I am troubled by the last year's increased level of violence in Iraq; we all are. But this resolution can only exacerbate the problem. Our service men and women deserve better from us. And we, Madam Speaker, regardless of party, are better than this. May God bless our troops.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 3, a bill authorizing taxpayer funding for human embryo-destroying stem cell research. This bill would reverse the reasonable embryonic stem cell policy, set in place by the President in 2001, which allows federal funds to be used for research on existing stem cell lines where the life and death decision has already been made. There have been exciting and dramatic developments in adult stem-cell research that hold great promise for medical advancements. I strongly support the need to pursue new treatments and cures to the diseases affecting millions of people world wide. However, in this pursuit we must be careful not to compromise our values of respecting human life. Embryonic stem cell research destroys human life at its earliest stage for experimental research purposes. There are many types of stem cell research that are worthwhile and that do not raise such ethical and moral concerns. Alternative sources such as umbilical cord and adult tissue cells are currently being used to treat people, and successfully. Earlier this week, scientists reported that amniotic non-embryonic stem cells may offer the same research possibilities as stem cells obtained through the destruction of living human embryos. Not only are these cells highly versatile, they are readily available. Such alternatives make clear that we are capable of achieving successful stem cell research without the intentional destruction of human embryos. The debate today is not about blocking embryonic stem cell research. There are vast financial resources available to fund this controversial research and any company or organization that wants to conduct or fund embryonic stem cell research may do so. And yet, despite extensive private research, there have been no successful therapeutic treatments with embryonic stem-cell research--none. With adult stem cells, physicians have successfully treated patients with diabetes, multiple sclerosis, sickle cell anemia, heart disease, Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis, among many others. These examples are a strong testament to the amazing power of adult stem cells. By voting against this bill, we can avoid not only the ethical and moral questions that are raised, but we can make sure that taxpayer dollars are invested wisely. Congress can provide and must help scientists realize the promise of embryonic stem cell research without authorizing the destruction of human life in the process. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support ethical stem cell research and to vote against this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, during this past campaign, Democrats pledged to move legislation through the regular committee process and to allow Republicans more latitude to offer amendments on the House floor. They broke this promise last week, again today, and they intend to do it next week as well. Today, as the House considers H.R. 1, the Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, Members are not allowed to offer any amendments. Formal committee process, rather than a closed rule and no committee consideration, would have identified the absurdity of providing an unelected board with an administrative subpoena authority that exceeds that of the FBI. An administrative subpoena is an order from a government official to a third party, instructing the recipient to produce certain information. Congress has granted subpoena authority to many agencies that exercise regulatory powers. One problem with administrative subpoenas is that they are not reviewed by courts unless challenged or for enforcement reasons. The 9/11 Commission's final report recommended that ``there should be a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties.'' H.R. 1 makes the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board an independent agency within the executive branch. I generally oppose administrative subpoenas within the executive branch, specifically those for law enforcement. I opposed granting the FBI administrative subpoena authority during consideration of the PATRIOT Act and I oppose it in this case. During a Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 10 in September 2004, I offered an amendment to establish a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to provide advice and counsel on policy development and implementation as it pertains to privacy and civil liberties implications of executive branch actions, proposed legislation, regulations, and policies related to efforts to protect the Nation from terrorism. My amendment was a complete substitute for an amendment offered by Mr. Watt that would have provided for a similar board with broad administrative subpoena power and provided nearly unlimited authority to analyze all aspects of the Nation's war on terrorism. While it is necessary to provide the proper tools and resources needed to fight and win the war on terror, giving an unelected board broad administrative subpoena authority is not the answer.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1082) condemning the decision by the city of St. Denis, France, to name a street in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of Philadelphia Police Officer Danny Faulkner.

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 House Resolution 1082 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1082, the resolution that condemns the decision by the city of St. Denis, France, to name a street in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of Philadelphia Police Officer Danny Faulkner. In 1981, Officer Faulkner was shot multiple times by Abu-Jamal, who was then convicted and sentenced to death. Although Abu-Jamal's conviction was upheld on appeal, the death sentence was overturned on habeas review in 2001, 20 years after the crime was committed. The city of St. Denis exhibited gross disregard for the family of Officer Faulkner, the city of Philadelphia and the families of slain law enforcement officers all over the United States when it callously announced the naming of a street to honor Abu-Jamal during the 2006 National Police Week. House Resolution 1082 condemns the heinous murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner and urges the city of St. Denis to reconsider the decision to name a street after a convicted police murderer. Should the city of St. Denis fail to act, the resolution asks the government of France to take action to correct this injustice and concludes by commending all police officers for their commitment to public service and safety. This resolution has received the support of the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Troopers Coalition. I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the author of the resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this resolution does one thing, and that is it tells a suburb of Paris to butt out in terms of making a statement relative to how the criminal justice system processed the case of the murder of Officer Faulkner. This is not an issue of whether or not the Federal Government or any of the States should have the death penalty, and I come from a noncapital punishment State. Whether or not a State has the death penalty is a decision that is to be made by their elected representatives. The elected representatives of my State since 1853 have chosen not to impose capital punishment. But in this case the death sentence was reversed in 2001, so that is a settled issue. Mumia Abu-Jamal is not going to be put to death. Now 5 years after this happens, the city of St. Denis decides to name a street after a convicted cop killer. I would like to know what the French would think if we started naming streets anywhere in the United States for people who had been convicted of murdering their police officers. I think they would tell us it is none of our business, and they would be right. What this resolution says is that the city of St. Denis should not decide to honor and glorify somebody that a jury of 12 unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt said murdered Officer Faulkner. That is all the resolution says. I think that in terms of saying that we Americans can solve our problems within our own constitutional system, we ought to be allowed to do so without some foreign country glorifying a person who has been convicted not only of first degree murder, but first degree murder against a public safety officer whose sworn duty it was to protect the citizens of our country. This resolution should be approved. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1458) to require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1458, as amended, currently under consideration.