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 materials on House Resolution 1090 currently under consideration.

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 House Resolution 1082 currently under consideration.

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. SENSENBRENNER. What were the dates of those two letters that you cited in your previous speech?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I think both of these letters have reached the wrong conclusion. And again, I will quote from the section that does make the nonapplicability to certain claims. That says the limitation on liability provided by subsection (a) does not apply to an action or claim arising out of a Federal, State or local antitrust, labor, defamation, sexual assault, fraud, sexual molestation, freedom of expression, sexual harassment, tortious interference of contract law, or civil rights law or any other Federal, State, or local law providing protection from discrimination. Now, I don't know how more broadly this exemption could be drafted than that. It is very clear that the complaint about the original bill providing a limitation on liability for sexual molestation or harassment or sexual assault was a legitimate one. So that is why the nonapplicability of certain claims provision was put in here. This is a red herring. It is not the original bill that people were complaining about. This is a bill that has dealt with that objection, and it should pass. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Sekula Gibbs).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes, and I ask the gentlewoman from California to yield.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my good friend, is simply incorrect in his statements that this bill does give blanket immunity for various types of sexual harassment and sexual molestation. Because the bill is being considered as amended, the amended version of the bill that is before the House now, on the bottom of page 7, says nonapplicability to certain claims. And it says: The limitation on liability provided by subsection (a) does not apply to an action or claim arising out of a Federal, State, or local antitrust, labor, environmental, defamation, sexual assault, fraud, sexual molestation, freedom of expression, sexual harassment, tortious interference of contract law, or civil rights law or any other Federal, State, or local law providing protection from discrimination. So this exemption very clearly deals with the objection that has been expressed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). The bill does not provide any immunity whatsoever for all of these types of activities and claims that I have mentioned. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Madam Speaker, I think this is an example about the way this place does business. On a bipartisan basis we passed the Adam Walsh Bill and that was signed into law by the President at the end of July. And that was the single greatest protection of children law that had been passed by the Congress in decades. And I was the author of that legislation. I worked with people on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol, and I think that this was a really great accomplishment of this Congress. And it shows what can happen when people work in a bipartisan manner. Now, we get to this bill after the election is over with, and there has been a change of control on both sides of the Capitol. I don't think that it can be disputed that the volunteers who set the rules of play should be exempted from liability. Now, these are the people that write the rule book. You know, they are not the people that actually coach the kids. They are not the people who make the equipment. They are not the people who provide the playing fields and either maintain them properly or don't maintain them properly. They are the ones that write the rule book. And a lot of the rules for amateur sports, whether it is at the high school or college or intramural level or whatever, those rules are designed to protect to the greatest extent possible the kids who compete in those sports, and that is what this bill is designed to protect. Now, I think that the complaints that were made by my friends on the other side of the aisle, that this bill could have been interpreted to provide immunity or a limitation of liability on those who commit acts of sexual assault or sexual molestation or sexual harassment against the kids were legitimate. And that is why the bill is amended. Now, when this bill was put on the Suspension Calendar last week by the leadership, we circulated an amendment to the minority party. We gave them the proposed language that is being debated and disputed early yesterday morning, and we never heard from them. And we followed up several times yesterday by staff to get their comments, and we never got any comments. We tried again this morning before this bill came up and never got any comments as well. The first we heard about their opposition to the legislation and the letters that have been cited by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) was when we got to the floor today. Now, that is their prerogative to do that, as it is the prerogative of any Member of this House, whether in the majority or in the minority. But the fact is that what we have heard from the other side of the aisle is designed to defeat this legislation altogether, as it was in the 108th Congress. And that would be a shame, because defeating this legislation is only going to hurt the volunteers who are making rules to protect children, rather than to protect people who might commit sexual offenses against them. We ought to protect the volunteers who make those rules, those volunteers who write the rule book, and the associations that bring those volunteers together so that kids can enjoy sports and play and learn the value of competition and the value of fair play. And if you can't get volunteers to write the rule book, then you are not going to be able to have kids' sports at all. So let's put the kids first and pass this bill. 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 support of H.R. 1176, the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2006. This bill is narrowly tailored to correct specific liability exposure problems for nonprofit sports rulemaking bodies, such as the National Federation of State High School Associations. The nonprofit athletic rulemaking bodies covered by this bill play a critical role in facilitating all levels and all types of sports. Nonprofit rulemaking bodies use the expertise of experienced volunteers to set forth rules for athletic competition and practices that preserve sports traditions and minimize risks to participants. However, this rulemaking function is a predictive endeavor without the benefit of perfect foresight, and sports involve inherent risks that cannot all be minimized with a rule. Thus, when inevitable accidents do occur, nonprofit rulemaking bodies are often sued along with the local school district, coach, and referees because such organizations are presumed to have ``deep pockets.'' In 1997, Congress passed the Volunteer Protection Act to shield volunteers from liability for some forms of negligence in response to concerns that America's lawsuit culture was inhibiting this country's risk tradition of volunteerism. However, because the Volunteer Protection Act does not protect organizations, this growing trend of lawsuits has led to a dramatic increase in the insurance premiums for many rulemaking associations. For example, the National High School Federation, which develops rules for 17 different sports, saw a 300 percent increase for insurance premiums in just over 3 years. This increase means that insurance premiums now make up over 10 percent of the Federation's annual budget. These trends deprive the Federation of funds that should be directed towards vital resources, such as sports equipment upgrades or routine field maintenance. If these insurance premiums continue to skyrocket, the rulemaking authorities may be unable to attract the quality of volunteers necessary to write effective rules, or worse, they may be driven out of existence entirely. This legislation limits liability exposure for these nonprofit athletic rulemaking organizations in a very targeted manner. Modeled on the Volunteer Protection Act, it does not confer blanket immunity. Rather, liability will still attach for gross negligence or reckless, willful or criminal misconduct. This bill is targeted at liability stemming only from an organization's promulgation of rules of play. During the committee's consideration of the bill, some raised concerns about the extent of the liability protections of the bill and claimed that it would protect, among others, entities that hire child molesters without conducting a background check. To ensure against such an unintended consequence, the legislation adds sexual assault, sexual molestation, and sexual harassment to the list of claims, including antitrust, labor, and civil rights claims, that are specifically exempted from the liability protections of this bill. So, to be absolutely clear, this bill as it comes to the floor today has been amended to meet every single objection to date about the scope and extent of the liability protections of the bill. Consequently, this bill should enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support. Further, this bill does not prevent suits against nonrulemaking entities, such as the owner of a field of play or an equipment manufacturer, who are likely to be implicated in a sports-related injury claim. By curbing the worst excesses of the lawsuit culture Congress can ensure that those who teach our children sports are more concerned about fair play and good sportsmanship than their insurance rates or a potential lawsuit. This bill is supported by the National Federation of State High School Associations, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Council of Youth Sports, the Amateur Athletic Union of the United States, and Little League Baseball, among others. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a letter from Robert Kanaby, executive director of the National Federation of State High School Associations, showing the support of his organization and each of the 50 individual State high school associations for this legislation. I hope that all my colleagues will join me in passing this bill. National Federation of State High School Associations, Indianapolis, IN, March 15, 2006. Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), I am writing to voice our strong support for the ``Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2005,'' H.R. 1176, and urge you to vote for this legislation when it reaches the House floor. On March 2, 2006, the Judiciary Committee voted to support moving this bill forward, and we are looking for your support when the bill reaches the House floor. Amateur and education-based sports are an important part of our society. These activities provide great benefits for participants and spectators alike. It is widely acknowledged that youth and interscholastic sports are a tremendous asset to young people and an important part of the community. In addition, they provide experiences for athletes that assist them in becoming better human beings and citizens in our society. The National Federation of State High School Associations, a non-profit organization that makes rules for high school sports, has been the target of liability claims alleging negligence due to the passage or adoption of rules for sanctioned or approved competitions. These allegations have resulted in an increase in the number of liability claims against this organization. The claims are beginning to have a detrimental financial and operational impact on the NFHS and could eventually affect our ability to continue to provide these services to our nation's high schools. While these claims are believed to be without merit, the cost of defending claims and the uncertainty of judicial proceedings have created significant challenges. It is possible we will need to reconsider providing such rules or guidelines in the future. This may be true of other amateur sports rules makers. Without this legislation, we expect this situation will continue to deteriorate and will further jeopardize non-profit organizations that make rules for amateur athletic competition. For education-based athletics to continue in America, nonprofit athletic organizations must have the ability to make rules without the threat of these claims. A list of state associations supporting this legislation by their adoption of the enclosed resolution is attached. Sincerely, Robert F. Kanaby, Executive Director.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Is the House considering a motion to suspend the rules of the bill, as amended?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman will yield back.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1176) to provide immunity for nonprofit athletic organizations in lawsuits arising from claims of ordinary negligence relating to the passage, adoption, or failure to adopt rules of play for athletic competitions and practices, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam 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. 1176 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. 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 support of H.R. 6338, the Geneva Distinctive Emblems Protection Act of 2006. Introduced by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), this legislation will assist in the implementation of important humanitarian programs. The Geneva Convention has long provided for the use of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems by governments and national societies to implement medical and humanitarian programs. In December of 2005, the Geneva Convention, through the Third Additional Protocol, adopted a third distinctive emblem, the Red Crystal, to join the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems. The adoption of the Red Crystal emblem cleared the path, with the acceptance of Israel's version of the Red Cross, into the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement after being excluded for more than 30 years. The approval of the Red Crystal emblem provides the American Red Cross, United States military personnel and humanitarian organizations and workers with another option in the circumstances where the Red Cross or the Red Crescent may not be perceived as a neutral emblem. On the day of its adoption, 27 countries, including the United States, signed the Third Additional Protocol. Since its adoption, the protocol has been signed by more than 49 other nations and becomes effective on January 14, 2007. Current United States law prohibits anyone, including corporations and associations, from wearing or displaying the American National Red Cross emblem or similar insignia for fraudulent purposes. This bill extends these same prohibitions and protections to the Red Crystal emblem and to the Red Crescent emblem by imposing a fine or a prison term for up to 6 months for fraudulently wearing or displaying the Red Crystal and Red Crescent emblems. This legislation will help deter the fraudulent use of vital symbols of medical and humanitarian aid. I urge my colleagues to join together to pass this bipartisan legislation. Mr. 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 6338 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6338) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent and repress the misuse of the Red Crescent distinctive emblem and the Third Protocol (Red Crystal) distinctive emblem.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4742, to amend title 35, United States Code, to allow the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to waive statutory provisions governing patents and trademarks in certain emergencies. The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in the gulf region affected the ability of applicants, patentees, trademark holders and other interested parties to do business with the PTO. Following the disaster, the agency invoked as much administrative and statutory authority as it could to accommodate those affected. For example, the PTO created a toll-free hotline for victims to call with questions or problems; attempted to place calls to all registered practitioners in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana; blocked outgoing mail to those living at relevant ZIP codes in the region; vacated all outstanding examiners' actions, to be remailed at a later time; and accorded ``special consideration'' to all reductions of patent term adjustments where the applicant delay was attributable to the hurricane. Despite its best efforts to date, the PTO needs additional authority to provide individuals and businesses relief from certain statutory deadlines, especially those pertaining to the maintenance of granted patents and registered trademarks. Pursuant to the bill, the PTO may waive statutory provisions governing the filing, processing, renewal and maintenance of patents, trademark registrations and applications to the extent the director deems necessary to protect the rights and privileges of applicants and other persons affected by certain emergencies or a major disaster. Madam Speaker, this is a noncontroversial measure that will ensure that the PTO carries out its statutory mandates in a fair manner during emergency conditions. I urge Members to support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 4742) to amend title 35, United States Code, to allow the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to waive statutory provisions governing patents and trademarks in certain emergencies.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam 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. 4742 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The reason the bill is before us is that the current statute is drafted too narrowly and does not deal with threats by animal rights extremists in inflicting bodily harm, for example, against the publisher of Vogue magazine, because they put ads in depicting people wearing furs.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3880, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. In recent years, some animal rights activist groups have employed violence and intimidation against enterprises that use or sell animals or animal products for food, agriculture, research testing or entertainment uses. In 1992, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act was enacted to provide additional authority to prosecute extremists whose attacks create damages or research losses of at least $10,000. However, the last several years have seen an increase in the number and the severity of criminal acts and intimidation against those engaged in animal enterprises. These groups have attacked not only employees of companies conducting research, but also those with any remote link to such research or activities. This has included employees of banks, underwriters, insurance companies, investors, university research facilities, and even the New York Stock Exchange. Victims have experienced threatening letters, e-mails and phone calls, repeated organized protests at their homes and the blanketing of their neighborhoods with defamatory literature. Some of the more violent acts by these groups include arson, pouring acid on cars, mailing razor blades, and defacing victims' homes. Many of the actions that the groups have engaged in are not addressed by the current animal enterprise terrorism statute, 18 United States Code 43. This legislation would expand the reach of Federal criminal law to specifically address the use of force, violence or threats against not only animal enterprise organizations, but also those who do business with them. S. 3880 would make it a Federal crime to intentionally damage the property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise. The bill would also make it a criminal act to intentionally place a person or family member in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury because of their relationship with an animal enterprise. Additionally, the legislation expands the definition of economic damage to include loss of property, the costs incurred because of a lost experiment or lost profits. It also includes a definition of the term ``economic disruption'' to mean losses or increased costs resulting from threats, acts of violence, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation against a person or entity because of their relationship with an animal enterprise. This does not include a lawful boycott. Finally, an amendment to S. 3880 incorporated during floor consideration in the other body addresses concerns that were raised about the bill's potential impact on lawful protests. S. 3880 clarifies that nothing in this bill shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected by the first amendment, nor shall it criminalize nonviolent activities designed to change public policy or private conduct. Before closing, I would like to recognize the efforts of my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, who introduced a similar measure in this body and has helped raise awareness of this important issue. I believe this bill can help protect law-abiding citizens who are engaged in lawful activities such as research, farming sales, or manufacturing that involves animals or animal products. I urge my colleagues to support S. 3880, so we may send this important legislation to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3880) to provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror.