F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, a war was started on United States soil. It was not a war we voluntarily entered. It was not a war we started. We were not given a choice. We were dragged into a war that day, a war on terrorism. Every day since September 11, we are reminded of these violent acts. The media reminds us daily with pictures of the missing, interviews with survivors, films of the many memorial services, and images of the massive destruction. We are constantly reminded that this is a war that is far from over. The rules of this war are vastly different from the wars that we have fought as a country in the past. We are uncertain who the enemy is. We are uncertain where the enemy is. We are more uncertain than ever before when and what the next move of the enemy will be. Because of this uncertainty, we have had to change the way that we think about the safety and security of our country and its people. We must develop new weapons for protection against this new kind of war. It is this new approach to safety and security that has required us to take action today. This bipartisan legislation will give law enforcement new weapons to fight this new kind of war. Terrorists have weapons that law enforcement cannot protect against right now. Technology has made extraordinary advances; but with these advances in the wrong hands, we are more vulnerable to attacks. Indeed, it cannot be denied that law enforcement tools created decades ago were crafted for rotary telephones, not e-mail, the Internet, mobile communications, and voice mail. Thus, this legislation, like the previous Committee on the Judiciary version and Senate 1510, modernizes surveillance capabilities by ensuring that pen register and trap and trace court orders apply to new technologies, such as the Internet, and can be executed in multiple jurisdictions anywhere in the United States. Criminal provisions dealing with stored electronic communications will be updated to allow law enforcement to seize stored voice-mail messages the same way they can seize a taped answering machine message. Additionally, under this bill, a court may authorize a pen register or trap/trace order that follows the person from cell phone to cell phone rather than requiring law enforcement to return to court every time the person switches cell phones. The bill, consistent with our constitutional system of government, still requires a judge to approve wiretaps, search warrants, pen registers, and trap/trace devices. Like the Committee on the Judiciary reported bill, this new bill continues to provide for nationwide service of warrants for electronic evidence, such as content of e-mails, and search warrants for terrorism. Current rules require that a search warrant be issued from the judicial district in which the property to be searched is located. The bill would change this to permit the prosecutor to go to the judge in the district overseeing the investigation to issue the warrant, and in the case for search warrants for terrorism offenses, in any district in which activities related to terrorism occurred. This will save valuable time. It is clearly within the public interest and the Federal Government's mandate to keep out of the United States persons who are intent on inciting or engaging in terrorist activities. This bill furthers that goal by expanding the definitions related to terrorist organizations. Under current law, unless otherwise specified, an alien is inadmissible and deportable for engaging in terrorist activities only when the alien has used explosives or firearms. This act eliminates that limitation so that any terrorist who has used any object, including a knife, a box- cutter, or an airplane, would be inadmissable and deportable. Under the current regulatory regime, the INS can detain an alien for 48 hours before making a decision as to charging the alien with a crime or removable offense. The INS uses this time to establish an alien's true identity, to check foreign and domestic databases for information about the alien, and to liaise with law enforcement agencies. This act extends that time period to 7 days so that the INS is not forced to release a terrorist simply because it has not had adequate time to do a thorough investigation. The substantive criminal law statutes are also toughened in order to treat crimes of terrorism with the same level of importance as the most serious crimes in our country. Some of these new provisions include no statutes of limitations for the most serious crimes of terrorism, allowing a judge to sentence a terrorist to prison for any number of years up to life for any offense that is defined as a ``Federal terrorism offense,'' and subjecting persons convicted of conspiracy to commit terrorism to the same penalties as those who actually commit the offense. Any person convicted of a terrorism offense will now be under supervision for as long as the court determines is necessary, including up to life. The act also expands the definition of support for terrorism for which a person can be prosecuted to include providing expert advice to terrorists and harboring or concealing a suspected terrorist. This new bill also continues the compromise language between current law and the administration's initial proposal for the showing needed for FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, investigations using wiretaps. Current FISA law requires that in order to obtain a FISA wiretap, the Attorney General must certify that the gathering of foreign intelligence is the purpose or a primary purpose of the investigation. The administration draft wanted to change this to only require a certification that it was a purpose. This bill requires the Attorney General must certify that it is a significant purpose. Furthermore, this bill, like the Committee on the Judiciary reported bill, provides for roving wiretaps for FISA investigations. Currently under FISA, the government must identify and get a separate order for each phone to be tapped. This provision allows the government to make a showing to a court that the target is changing phones to thwart the tap, and to allow the court to authorize taps of any phones which the target may use. This provision is consistent with current criminal law. Importantly, the bill does not do anything to take away the freedoms of innocent citizens. Of course we all recognize that the fourth amendment to the Constitution prevents the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, and that is why this legislation does not change the United States Constitution or the rights guaranteed to citizens of this country under the Bill of Rights. We should keep in mind that the Preamble to the Constitution states that it was ordained to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty. Well, let me say, on September 11, our common defense was penetrated, and America's tranquility, welfare, and liberty were ruthlessly attacked. I urge the Members of this body to stand united together in recognition of the important purpose we must serve in preventing terrorist attacks in the future and prosecuting those who have already attacked us. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a little bit about the road this legislation has traveled on the way to the floor today. The road was relatively short, but certainly not without its twists and turns. Along the way, the legislation has been the subject of intense negotiation between House Republicans and Democrats, the administration, Members from the other body, and our leaders here in the House. After a 36 to nothing markup in the House Committee on the Judiciary last week and the introduction of a bipartisan antiterrorism bill in the other body, we were faced with trying to reconcile two different bipartisan bills, one of which garnered stronger support by the administration. However, our goal remains clear, to quickly come to agreement on legislation that will provide our law enforcement and intelligence officials with new tools necessary to more effectively battle terrorism and other crimes. The bill before us now makes several changes to the bill passed by the other body last night, although most core provisions are very similar or are identical to the bill reported by the Committee on the Judiciary last week. Indeed, S. 1510 incorporated many of our committee's provisions. Most importantly, this bill preserves a sunset over many provisions of the bill. It is longer than the 2-year sunset contained in the bill passed by the Committee on the Judiciary; but, nonetheless, I believe it does the trick. It should keep the Department of Justice in line while providing Congress the opportunity to conduct effective oversight over the implementation and use of these new law enforcement authorities. Mr. Speaker, this has not been the ideal process, and the legislation before us now does not represent a perfect compromise. However, the work of the House Committee on the Judiciary over the past 3 weeks has greatly improved upon the original Justice Department proposal. I believe it now responsibly addresses many of the shortcomings of the current law and improves law enforcement's ability to prevent future terrorism activities and the preliminary crimes which further such activities while preserving the civil rights of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 264, I call up the bill (H.R. 2975) to combat terrorism, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 2975, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman emeritus of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit should be rejected for the following reason: In many cases, what begins as an ordinary criminal investigation will end up leading into material relating to how terrorists finance themselves or how terrorists act and further criminal activity as well. Let me give an example. Last month, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, gave a very eloquent speech to the annual conference of his Labor Party somewhere in England. That speech was covered by C-SPAN. I saw most of it. I hope that many of the other Members did as well. But one of the things that Prime Minister Blair said was that 90 percent of the heroin that is sold in the United Kingdom is sold by Osama bin Laden's front groups, and the money that is used from people who purchase the heroin is used to finance Osama bin Laden's terrorist activities. Under the motion to recommit by the gentleman from New York, if there is an ordinary, run-of-the-mill drug investigation that might include terrorist activity or might not include terrorist activity, the expanded law enforcement provisions of this bill would not apply until there is evidence that terrorist activity has infiltrated that part of the drug trade. By the time that evidence comes up, it might be too late, and there might be another terrorist strike that could have been prevented as a result of the increased law enforcement powers that are contained in this bill. The motion to recommit by the gentleman from New York will not allow law enforcement to expand its scope in time because there would have to be showing of a linkage to international terrorism as defined by this bill. We should reject the motion to recommit simply for that reason. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion to recommit. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment considered as adopted pursuant to H. Res. 264 be further modified as follows: delete sections 302, 303, and 304. This request has been cleared with the minority.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), to wrap this up.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of complaints about process from the other side of the aisle and a lot of those complaints are really misdirected. First, the bill that will be considered as the text, once we get to it, has been out there for over a week. It is the text that was introduced in the Senate by the Democratic leader of the Senate, the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle). A version of the bill passed the Senate last night by a vote of 96-1, with only one Senator voting against it. So no one should be surprised at what was in the text of the Senate-passed bill. The difference between the Senate-passed bill and what I hope we will be considering after this rule passes is that the negotiations over the last 48 hours have taken provisions in the Senate-passed bill out, and they will not be considered in the context of the substitute amendment that is contained in this self-executing rule. What has been placed into the Senate-passed bill were ideas that were either adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary when we marked up H.R. 2975 or modifications that were suggested by both majority party members and minority party members. So there should be no surprise because those modifications have been suggested and shared with both sides of the aisle on the committee. Given the fact that we are really not dealing with new ideas here and we are dealing with ideas that have been out on the table for at least a week, either in this body or the other body, the question comes, when are we going to vote on an antiterrorism bill? This rule allows us to vote on the antiterrorism bill today, like the other body voted on the antiterrorism bill last night. We should get on with the legislative process. We should get this legislation through the Congress and on the President's desk as soon as possible so that law enforcement will have the tools to track down those that are planning future acts of terrorism in the United States and to keep them off balance. The time to vote is now, and the way to get us to a vote is by voting for this rule.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the Senate disagrees with the House amendment, I assume it will go to conference. I would hope that for once the Senate would think that we got it right and pass the bill unamended and let the President then do his thing.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the point of order should be sustained. The rules of the House very clearly state that interstate compacts, regardless of the nature of them, fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. This bill is a bill that has been produced not by the Committee on the Judiciary, but the Committee on Agriculture, and consequently the amendment does not meet the jurisdictional test that is contained in clause 7 of rule XVI. The point of order should be determined to be well taken.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 42. This joint resolution recognizes the memorial of thousands of Americans who have fallen while serving as fire and emergency personnel throughout the years in America by lowering the American flag to half- staff on the day of the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service. This year, this day is Sunday, October 7. Every year, thousands of Americans attend public and private ceremonies at the campus of the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland, during the National Fallen Firefighters Weekend. While these ceremonies are in remembrance of lost loved ones and close friends who have fallen while serving as fire and emergency personnel, it is also an opportunity to show support for those who continue to put their lives on the line, providing aid and protection for others. This Memorial Service is conducted by the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, in partnership with FEMA's United States Fire Administration. It is a national memorial service dedicated to all fallen firefighters and emergency personnel. House Joint Resolution 42 joins the Federal Government in praise and prayers for our fallen heroes by lowering the American flag to half- staff on the day of this memorial service. Madam Speaker, every year, many of those actively participating in fire and emergency services in America suffer debilitating injuries. Between 1981 and 1999, Wisconsin lost 35 fire and emergency personnel, including Mr. Dana R. Johnson and Mr. James Is-Berner, who will be honored in 2002 at the National Fallen Firefighters Weekend. Overall, during the same period of time, the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation reports that America has lost 2,077 fire and emergency personnel in the line of duty. While the risks and dangers are reflected by the number of Americans that have fallen while serving as fire and emergency personnel, the number of those participating in this essential service to our communities continues to grow. Currently, Madam Speaker, fire and emergency personnel in America are 1.2 million people strong, and they can be found in every community of every State and territory in our Nation, where they respond to over 16 million emergency calls every year. While we can speculate on how to better fortify our homeland, it is clear that our first line of domestic response is largely comprised of fire and emergency personnel. Nothing demonstrates the significance of fire and emergency personnel more than their dedication and sacrifice in America's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11. More than 300 fire and emergency personnel died as a result of these attacks, and thousands of other fire and emergency personnel are still digging through the rubble, a dangerous task in and of itself. Of those still at the scene, it is reported that over 1,500 have been injured. Madam Speaker, the response of our fire and emergency personnel was instantaneously initiated in the face of danger with the hope that lives could be saved. President Bush has said that in the face of terrorism, Americans must decide to live in fear or to live in freedom. Our fire and emergency personnel fearlessly answered that question and sent a clear message to the entire world: America will not be intimidated. While America has always recognized the emergency service that fire and emergency personnel provide to our communities, on September 11, all Americans joined in their bond. Although fire and emergency personnel participate in career and voluntary positions with a variety of skills that defy virtually every obstacle, each of these individuals share a commonality, unity and brotherhood. On September 11, we watched in utter disbelief as horrific terrorist acts were committed before our very eyes. Most people did not realize that our fire and emergency personnel had already begun to respond. Shortly thereafter, it was clear that an act of war had been committed against our Nation, and our fire and emergency personnel had begun fearless rescue efforts to save their own and to save others that had become victims of these attacks. Madam Speaker, there is no siren or warning system for a response of this magnitude. It is a call of nature, it is a call to danger, and it is a way of life for the fire and emergency personnel in the United States of America. Finally, Madam Speaker, we can join in remembrance of all Americans that have fallen while serving as fire and emergency personnel, and in support of those who continue to serve or who join this noble effort by voting in support of House Joint Resolution 42. I urge all of my colleagues to take the time this weekend, the weekend for this year's National Firefighters Memorial Service, to remember all those that have given their lives serving as fire and emergency personnel, and in support of all those who continue to provide this service. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 to include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution 42, the joint resolution under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 42) memorializing fallen firefighters by lowering the American flag to half-staff in honor of the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in Emmitsburg, Maryland, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who was a fire chief before his election to Congress and who, together with me, are the only Members of Congress that own Dalmations, the firefighters' mascot.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the principal author of this resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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. 169) to require that Federal agencies be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today is a historic day for the House, as we are about to consider, and likely pass, what Jack White at Time Magazine called ``the first new civil rights law of the 21st century.'' I, along with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), introduced H.R. 169, the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2001, or the No FEAR Act, to address an outrage in the Federal Government. The Federal Government should serve as a model of the best practices for a fair and open work environment. But after a year-long investigation, I was surprised to discover that some Federal agencies appear to be allowing discrimination and retaliation against their own employees. The General Accounting Office has also investigated discrimination in the Federal workforce and found complaints grew tremendously in the 1990s. In fact, in fiscal year 1999, the number of complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission was about 120 percent greater than the number of complaints in 1991. The GAO also reported that complaints alleging retaliation against employees who had participated in the complaint process had increased as well. That very type of retaliation is what has brought us here today. A number of brave EPA employees and scientists came forward to tell the Committee on Science, which I chaired in the last Congress, about a culture of intolerance and hostility at the EPA. By assisting a congressional investigation, those employees risked retaliation, and some experienced it. In fact, the Labor Department concluded that the EPA had retaliated against a female scientist because the Committee on Science used a memorandum she wrote 10 years prior to one of the hearings on the issue. She did not even know the committee had obtained her memorandum, but she was still punished by the agency. The problem is threefold: first, many employees and managers are not aware of their rights and responsibilities, due to inadequate notification requirements. Second, Federal agencies in Congress cannot assess the extent of the problem due to inadequate reporting. Third, Federal agencies are not accountable for the misdeeds of their employees, as Federal agencies found guilty of discrimination do not have to pay judgment settlement costs. The bill is aimed at preventing and reducing discrimination and retaliation in the Federal workforce by requiring better notification, reporting, and accountability from Federal agencies. The No FEAR Act would require agencies to pay for all court settlements or judgments for discrimination and retaliation cases, rather than allowing them to use a government-wide slush fund. This will make the agencies more accountable for their actions. The bill's notification requirement is aimed at improving workforce relations by increasing managers' and employees' knowledge of their respective rights and responsibilities. The act's reporting requirement will help determine if a pattern of misconduct exists within an agency and, if so, whether an agency is taking appropriate action to address the problem, such as disciplining those employees or managers involved in the misconduct. Tracking this information is critical to understanding whether a problem exists. Finally, the bill ensures that the Federal agencies abide by the same laws by which private citizens and businesses must operate. Just like private sector employees, Federal employees are protected against discrimination and retaliation. Just like the private sector, Federal agencies must be held accountable. Madam Speaker, H.R. 169 enjoys a broad show of diverse support. The NAACP has endorsed this bill, as well as the National Taxpayers Union. As the National Taxpayers Union stated in urging Congress to enact the legislation, ``The No FEAR Act promotes the virtues of fiscal responsibility and accountability in government.'' Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 169, as amended, the bill under consideration.