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 include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 243.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 243) expressing the sense of the Congress that the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor should be presented to the public safety officers who have perished and select other public safety officers who deserve special recognition for outstanding valor above and beyond the call of duty in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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 yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. 1840, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is the latest step in a long process to attempt to pass a bill and send to the President a bill that is vitally needed. It is vitally needed by our law enforcement officials who are fighting the battle at home. We do not know how this battle will be fought. We do not know what tactics the enemy will take. We do not know what agents the enemy will use. What we need is we need to get the intelligence necessary to protect the people of the United States of America from whatever the enemy has up its sleeve. The Committee on the Judiciary did marvelous work. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) was a joy to work with, as were all of the other members of the committee when we reported the bill out 36 to nothing. The other body did not have committee consideration. They took their bill directly to the floor and passed it 96 to one. What we have before us here today is the result of a preconference that had bipartisan and bicameral participation. Wednesday of last week there was a meeting presided over by our distinguish Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). In attendance were the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) representing the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), myself on the House side, and Senators Daschle, Lott, Leahy, and Hatch representing the Senate leadership and the chairman and ranking minority membership of the Committee on the Judiciary. The issues and disagreement between the House and the Senate were thrashed out thoroughly. I can tell the membership tonight that the bill that is before us tonight is better than the bill which was passed on October 12 by a vote of 337 to 79. We were able to get a shorter sunset. We were able to include money laundering provisions which were not in our bill because of jurisdictional problems, but which were in the bill passed by the other body and language was passed by us last week as a result of the efforts of the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill. I do not think we can get a perfect bill given the conflicting issues that are before us; but none of the changes are new in the legislation that is before us compared to either the Committee on Financial Services bill of last week and the Committee on the Judiciary bill of October 12. There is no surprise in any of these issues. This is a bill that is vitally needed. The President has called for it. The Attorney General has called for it, and we should not delay in passing it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3162) to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the urgency of getting this job done is very, very great. If there were issues that were not discussed between this body and the other body, I think the gentleman's representation would be correct. But all of these issues were discussed. I think a conference would merely delay passing powers that law enforcement vitally needs. We have done a good job in balancing the need for stronger law enforcement powers and civil liberties. I would urge support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, it would be my hope that because this is the result of a preconference, the body would pass this bill unamended and send it to the Senate. The issues that would have been debated in the conference were debated in the preconference with the participants that I just mentioned. There was compromise that took place between what the Senate passed and what the House passed. I think that this bill again is better than the bill that we passed on October 12, and I believe that it is deserving of the support of all Members of the House of Representatives.

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. 3162, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we have the duty and privilege to pass this historic legislation, the USA-PATRIOT Act of 2001, which was born of adversity and violent attack. This landmark legislation will provide law enforcement and intelligence agencies additional tools that are needed to address the threat of terrorism and to find and prosecute terrorist criminals. This legislation authorizes the sharing of information between criminal investigators and those engaged in foreign intelligence- gathering. It provides for enhanced wiretap and surveillance authority. It brings the basic building blocks of a criminal investigation, pen registers and trap and trace provisions, into the 21st century to deal with e-mails and Internet communications. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the result of bipartisan consultation and review. A version of this legislation was passed by the House Committee on the Judiciary 36 to nothing. The House then passed H.R. 2975 by a vote of 337 to 79. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees and the bipartisan leadership began a process last week to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills. This bill is the result of that process and was completed despite the closure of House and Senate offices due to the anthrax attack on the Capitol. The changes to the bill are few, but significant. First, the sunset provision in the House bill was modified to sunset in 4 years. Provisions of the original version expired in 5 years, and the Senate did not have a sunset provision at all. Also, the Senate bill contained revisions to the so-called McDade law. This compromise version does not contain those changes, and I agreed to review this subject in a different context. This bill also contains comprehensive money laundering provisions that will be discussed by my colleagues from the Committee on Financial Services. The House bill did not contain such provisions, although the House subsequently passed a separate bill. Regarding the information-sharing provisions, the Senate bill permitted law enforcement to share grand jury material with intelligence agencies without notice to a court. The House bill permitted such sharing only after prior authorization to the court. This bill allows the sharing of grand jury material, but the Department of Justice must give notice to the court after the disclosure. The legislation also contains a provision found in neither the House nor the Senate version, but directs the Department of Justice to file an ex parte and in camera notice with the court when the Government installs on an Internet Service Provider a device pursuant to a lawful pen register or trap and trace order. This provision's author is the esteemed majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). This legislation also contains a number of provisions, including three authored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and one by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), which were in the House Committee on the Judiciary version of the bill, but not in the version passed on the floor. This bill also contains a number of provisions that have been worked out on both sides of the aisle in the other body. Regarding the bill's immigration provisions, the compromise legislation allows the Attorney General to delegate only to the Deputy Attorney General the ability to certify an alien as a terrorist. The House Committee on the Judiciary version of this bill contained this provision, but the Senate-passed bill did not, but allows such delegation to the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In addition, the compromise requires the Attorney General to revisit every 6 months the detention of an alien who has been certified as an alien terrorist. The compromise also adds a provision authorizing the appropriation of over $36 million to implement as quickly as possible the foreign student tracking system that was created in 1996. Finally, this legislation contains important humanitarian relief originally contained in the House bill, but not the Senate version, for the families of immigrants killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not perfect, and the process is not one that all will embrace. However, these are difficult times that require steadfast leadership and an expeditious response. The legislation is desperately needed, and the President has called on Congress to pass it now. I urge all Members to support this important antiterrorism legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this motion be extended by an additional 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who is a member of both the Committee on the Judiciary and Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 on H.R. 863, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1552) to extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act through 2006, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 1552, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1552, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. Over the last several years, the Internet has revolutionized commerce in a manner few could have imagined. The Internet has expanded consumer choices, enhanced competition and enabled individuals, as well as brick and mortar retailers, to avail themselves of a national marketplace once reserved to a privileged few. While government deserves some credit for helping create the technological infrastructure of the new digital economy, government regulation and taxation threaten to impede its tremendous commercial potential. In 1998, Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act to facilitate the commercial development of the Internet. Contrary to widely held impressions, the Internet Tax Freedom Act does not specifically exempt Internet retailers from collecting and remitting all sales taxes. Rather, it prohibits States from imposing multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce and shields consumers from new Internet access taxes. These limited protections will expire on October 21, less than a week from today. Introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who also authored the Internet Tax Freedom Act, H.R. 1552 extends the ban on new Internet access taxes and on all multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law has conducted a number of Internet tax hearings this Congress, and I commend the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), for his thorough and balanced consideration of this issue. The version of H.R. 1552 reported by the Committee on the Judiciary preserves the protections contained in the Internet Tax Freedom Act until November 1, 2003. Renewal of these provisions for 2 years represents a compromise approach that simply maintains the existing moratorium on Internet taxes. A 2-year renewal also provides the best legislative vehicle for getting an Internet tax extension bill to the President before its imminent expiration. If H.R. 1552 is not passed, Internet commerce will be subject to State and local taxes in more than 7,500 taxing jurisdictions. As Chief Justice John Marshall recognized over 200 years ago, the ``power to tax involves the power to destroy.'' Failure to extend the moratorium may result in the imposition of a complex web of taxes that would destroy the viability of this critical medium at a time the technology industry and broader economy can least afford it. Recent events have only underlined the fragility of the technology sector. Information technology companies have been buffeted by falling stock prices and signs of a deepening economic downturn. The last thing these companies need is more uncertainty, and passage of H.R. 1552 will provide a measure of stability during this turbulent period. Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed an extension of the Internet tax moratorium by a vote of 352 to 75, but this measure did not receive a vote from the other body. This year there is no time to delay, and I urge support of the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).