F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I can't believe what I have heard from my friends on the other side of the aisle. If they succeed in defeating this bill, it is a case of be sorry for getting what you ask for. This bill actually puts more civil liberties protections into the PATRIOT Act than the conference report which has already been passed by both Houses and is ready to be enrolled and sent to the President for his signature. So if you have your way and you vote down the bill that was authored by the gentleman from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu, you are not going to have the additional civil liberties protections that are contained in Senate 2271. That is not going to stop the conference report which you opposed in December, as is your right, from going to the President and being signed without these additional civil liberties protections. If you are for more civil liberties protections in the PATRIOT Act, vote for this bill. If you are against them, vote against this bill. But the fate of this bill has no bearing on the fact that the conference report on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization has been cleared by both Houses and is ready to go to the White House. So think before you vote ``no.'' I am voting ``aye'' because this is a good bill, and we ought to vote on this bill based upon what is in it rather than what is in other legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, the statement we just heard is at variance with what has happened since the PATRIOT Act was enacted. First, none of the 16 provisions that expanded law enforcement powers has been held unconstitutional by any Federal Court in the country in over 4 years of being tested. Second, the PATRIOT Act requires the Justice Department Inspector General to report to Congress twice a year on civil liberties violations that have been investigated. We have gotten those reports. There haven't been any. Third, there is a provision in the PATRIOT Act that said anybody who thinks their civil liberties are violated can sue the Justice Department and get $10,000 of statutory damages in addition to proven economic damages and attorneys fees. So far, not a dime has been paid out in judgments or settlements under this section. This is an example of how the PATRIOT Act has been distorted by those who are opposed to it. Let us talk about the PATRIOT Act, because the PATRIOT Act has passed muster, and the facts and the court decisions show it. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2271 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam Speaker, the national security letters were not one of the additional law enforcement powers that were passed as a part of the PATRIOT Act. They were passed in 1986, 15 years before 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act was passed. The gentleman is correct in saying that national security letters were held unconstitutional, and what we did in this reauthorization bill is to provide a procedure to challenge them and make them constitutional, even though they weren't in the original PATRIOT Act.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006. On December 14 of last year, the House passed the conference report on H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, by a strong bipartisan vote of 251-174. Last Thursday, the other body followed the bipartisan lead of this House and approved the conference report by an overwhelming vote of 89-10. When the House Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the PATRIOT Act a month after the 9/11 attacks, I pledged to vigorously examine its implementation to ensure that enhanced law enforcement authority is required to reduce America's vulnerability that terrorism did not erode our constitutional or civil liberties. As the historical record makes amply clear, it was the House, led by former majority leader Dick Armey and me, that forcefully insisted that much of the PATRIOT Act's expansion of law enforcement authority sunset without affirmative congressional reauthorization. These sunsets helped complement aggressive Congressional oversight of the implementation of the PATRIOT Act. The conference report now passed by both houses represents the product of comprehensive bipartisan consideration consisting of legislative and oversight hearings, briefings, and inspector general reports and committee correspondence. This extensive record, a chronology of which I will submit for the Record, has demonstrated that the PATRIOT Act has been an effective tool against terrorists and other criminals. At the same time, intense congressional and public scrutiny has not produced a single substantiated claim that the PATRIOT Act has been misused to violate American civil liberties. However, the conference report contained over 30 important civil liberties amendments and revisions revised to further mitigate the potential for misuse of the PATRIOT Act. This bill includes three additional clarifications of the conference report to address concerns raised by some Members of the other body. First, current law does not expressly provide a recipient of a section 215 order or a national security letter the right to challenge it. The conference report clearly delineated judicial review for such challenges, including the ability of NSL recipients to challenge an accompanying nondisclosure order. S. 2271 would extend the section 215 recipients similar access to judicial review, to challenge and attach the nondisclosure order. Second, because of national security concerns, the conference report contained language that would allow the government to ask a recipient of one of these national security orders to identify the persons to whom disclosure will be or was made. The Director of National Intelligence expressed concern that without this safeguard, a recipient could disclose the government's investigative efforts to a person with ties to hostile foreign governments or entities. The conference report permitted the government to determine whether a request is warranted, and if the defendant has made such a request to determine whether the disclosure affected an ongoing investigation. An exception was included for information that might interfere with attorney-client relations, specifically barring the disclosure of the identity of an attorney to whom a recipient planned to disclose. This bill extends the exception to prevent the government from requesting the name of counsels with whom the recipient had already consulted. Finally, S. 2271 clarifies current law that a library may only be subject to an NSL request if it falls under 18 U.S.C. 2516(15), which defines an electronic communications service provider as any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communication. This change addresses the potential for misuse alleged by critics of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, over the last 5 years, the PATRIOT Act has been the focus of virtually unprecedented congressional and public scrutiny. Opponents of this legislation have relied upon exaggeration and hyperbole to distort a demonstrated record of accomplishment and success. The Justice Department and other agencies have properly used the PATRIOT Act to detect, disrupt and dismantle sales in New York, Virginia and Oregon before they struck. The PATRIOT Act helped tear down the pre-9/11 wall that prevented law enforcement intelligence agencies from sharing critical information necessary to avert terrorist attacks on American soil. It has become a critical tool of America's law enforcement arsenal and a vital deterrent against terrorist subversion. It upheld our constitutional values, and none of the provisions authorized by the conference report have been held unconstitutional. Simply stated, the PATRIOT Act has made America safer while safeguarding our civil liberties. The conference report contained provisions to address claims that the PATRIOT Act might be misused to violate civil liberties, and Senate 2271 contains additional provisions to further allay these concerns. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and look forward to the eminent enactment of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 into law. The following material is a chronology of the oversight of the PATRIOT Act from October of 2001 to November of 2005 and a listing of additional civil liberties protections contained in the conference report of H.R. 3119: Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act From October, 2001, to November, 2005 1. November 9, 2005, Department of Justice classified briefing for Committee on the Judiciary staff on press accounts of FBI use of NSLs; 2. October 25, 2005, Department of Justice classified briefing for House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary and Committees on Intelligence staff on press accounts of FBI use of NSLs; 3. October 6, 2005, Department of Justice classified briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff on press accounts of mistakes in FBI applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under the USA PATRIOT Act; 4. July 12, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to July 1, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 5. July 12, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to May 19, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 6. July 11, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to Rep. Bobby Scott responding to questions regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 7. July 11, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 8. July 5, 2005, letter from FBI Director Meuller to Senate Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 9. July 1, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to Rep. Bobby Scott responding to questions regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 10. July 1, 2005, letter from House Committee on the Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 11. June 29, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary responding to April 5, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 12. June 10, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act; 13. June 8, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act; 14. May 26, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security hearing on Material Witness Provisions of the Criminal Code and the Implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act; Section 505 that Addresses National Security Letters; and Section 804 that Addresses Jurisdiction over Crimes Committed at U.S. Facilities Abroad; 15. May 19, 2005, letter from House Committee on the Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 16. May 10, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security hearing on the prohibition of Material Support to Terrorists and Foreign Terrorist Organizations and on the DOJ Inspector General's Reports on Civil Liberty Violations under the USA PATRIOT Act; 17. May 10, 2005, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on continued oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act; 18. May 5, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security hearing on Section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act that Allows Emergency Disclosure of Electronic Communications to Protect Life and Limb; 19. May 3, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security hearing on Sections 201, 202, 213, and 223 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Their Effect on Law Enforcement Surveillance; 20. April 28, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security hearing: Section 218 of the USA PATRIOT Act--If It Expires Will the ``Wall'' Return?; 21. April 28, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security hearing: Have Sections 206 and 215 Improved Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Investigations?; 22. April 26, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to April 4, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 23. April 26, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism; and Homeland Security hearing: Have Sections 204, 207, 214, and 225 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and Sections 6001 and 6002 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, improved FISA Investigations; 24. April 21, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security hearing on Crime, Terrorism, and the Age of Technology--(Section 209: Seizure of Voice-Mail Messages Pursuant to Warrants; Section 217: Interception of Computer Trespasser Communications; and Section 220: Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electronic Evidence); 25. April 20, 2005, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security hearing: A Review of the Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition; 26. April 19, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security hearing on Sections 203(b) and (d) of the USA PATRIOT Act and their Effect on Information Sharing; 27. April 6, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing with Attorney General Gonzales; 28. April 5, 2005, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act; 29. March 22, 2005, Department of Justice law enforcement sensitive briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff on the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act; 30. September 22, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing: A Review of Counter-Terrorism Legislation and Proposals, Including the USA PATRIOT Act and the SAFE Act May 5, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing: Aiding Terrorists--a Review of the Material Support Statute; 31. May 20, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on FBI Oversight: Terrorism; 32. April 14, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on Preventing and Responding to Acts of Terrorism: A Review of Current Law; 33. February 3, 2004, Department of Justice briefing for House Committee on the Judiciary staff on its views of S. 1709, the ``Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 2003,'' and H.R. 3352, the House companion bill, as both bills proposed changes to the USA PATRIOT Act; 34. November 20, 2003, request by Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler to GAO requesting a study of the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act anti-money laundering provisions. Report was released on June 6, 2005; 35. October 29, 2003, Department of Justice classified briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff on the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act; 36. September 10, 2003, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security hearing on Terrorism: Two Years After 9/11, Connecting the Dots; 37. August 7, 2003, Department of Justice briefing for House Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff regarding the long-standing authority for law enforcement to conduct delayed searches and collect business records and the effect of the USA PATRIOT Act on those authorities; 38. July 23, 2003, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on Law Enforcement and Terrorism; 39. June 13, 2003, letter from Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, Pamela J. Turner, to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act; 40. June 10, 2003, Department of Justice classified briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff on the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act; 41. June 5, 2003, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the U.S. Department of Justice, including its use of the provisions authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act; 42. May 20, 2003, House Subcommittee on the Constitution hearing: Anti-Terrorism Investigations and the Fourth Amendment After September 11th: Where and When Can Government Go to Prevent Terrorist Attacks; 43. May 13, 2003, letter from Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jamie Brown to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act; 44. April 1, 2003, letter from the House Committee on the Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 45. October 9, 2002, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security hearing: Tools Against Terror: How the Administration is Implementing New Laws in the Fight to Protect our Homeland; 46. September 20, 2002, letter from Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Bryant, to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act; 47. September 10, 2002, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act in Practice: Shedding Light on the FISA Process; 48. August 26, 2002, letter from Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Bryant, to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act; 49. July 26, 2002, letter from Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Bryant to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act; 50. July 25, 2002, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the Department of Justice, including its implementation of the authorities granted by the USA PATRIOT Act; 51. June 13, 2002, letter from the House Committee on the Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 52. April 17, 2002, Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts hearing: ``Should the Office of Homeland Security Have More Power? A Case Study in Information Sharing;'' 53. December 6, 2001, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on DOJ Oversight: Preserving our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism; 54. December 4, 2001, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on DOJ Oversight: Preserving our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism; 55. November 28, 2001, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on DOJ Oversight: Preserving our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism; and 56. October 3, 2001, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights hearing: Protecting Constitutional Freedoms in the Face of Terrorism. Additional Civil Liberties Protections Contained in the Conference Report on H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 The conference report contains the following additional safeguards: Requires a description of a specific target in both the application and the court order for ``roving wiretaps,'' and specific facts in the application that show that the target's actions may thwart surveillance efforts--if the target's true identity is unknown. Requires that the FBI must notify the court within 10 days after beginning surveillance of any new phone for all ``roving wiretaps.'' The notice must include the total number of electronic surveillances conducted under the court's multipoint order. Includes new reporting requirements to Congress, including new details about the use of ``roving'' authority. Requires that for delayed notice search warrants that notice of the search be given within 30 days of its execution, unless the facts justify a later date, eliminating the open-ended period of delay permissible under current law. Allows for extensions of the delay period in giving notice of a search, but only upon an updated showing of the need for further delay. Also, it limits any extension to 90 days or less, unless the facts of the case justify a longer delay. Adds new reporting requirements to Congress on the use of delayed notice search warrants. Requires for section 215 orders, relating to investigator's access to business records, a statement of facts showing reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or espionage. This provides additional safeguards to the original USA PATRIOT Act, which required the government only to certify that the records at issue were sought for an authorized investigation--without any factual showing. Requires a three part test for section 215 orders that ensures the records are sought for: a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation; or an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation. This test combined with the newly required statement of facts should mitigate concerns of government ``fishing expeditions,'' while maintaining the flexibility for legitimate terrorism investigations. Explicitly guarantees the right for recipients of section 215 orders to consult legal counsel and seek judicial review. Requires high level approval by either the FBI Director, Deputy Director, or Executive Assistant Director for requests for certain records, including library records, medical records, educational records, and tax return records. Limits the scope of section 215 orders to materials that could be obtained via grand jury subpoena or a similar court order for the production of records. Limits retention, and prohibits dissemination, of information concerning U.S. persons. Requires that the DOJ Inspector General conduct two separate audits of the FBI's use of section 215 orders that will examine: any noteworthy facts or circumstances relating to 215 orders, including any improper or illegal use of the authority; the manner in which such information is collected, retained, analyzed, and disseminated by the FBI; and an assessment of whether the minimization procedures protect the constitutional rights of United States persons. Requires enhanced reporting to Congress of section 215 orders, including a breakdown of its use to obtain library records, medical records, educational records, and other sensitive types of records. Requires public reporting of the aggregate use of section 215 orders. Allows recipients of National Security Letters (NSLs) to consult with legal counsel. Creates an explicit right to judicial review of NSL requests. Permits a reviewing court to modify or set aside an NSL if compliance would be unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful--this is the same standard used to modify or quash a subpoena in a criminal case. Provides for judicial review of the nondisclosure requirements. Adds a ``knowing and willfully'' standard that must be proven before someone who discloses an NSL can be subject to a 1-year misdemeanor offense. Requires the DOJ IG to conduct two comprehensive audits of the FBI's use of NSLs. Requires the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of applying minimization procedures to NSLs to ensure the protection of constitutional rights of U.S. persons. Adds a new ``sunshine'' provision that requires annual public reporting on NSLs. Provides for expanded congressional access to significant FISA reporting currently provided to the Intelligence Committees. Includes a provision requiring the FISA Court to submit its rules & procedures to Congress. Creates new reporting requirements for the use of emergency authorities under FISA. Requires new reporting on the use of emergency disclosures of communications information made under section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Requires the Department of Justice to submit a report to Congress on the Department's data-mining activities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), chair of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further reserving the right to object, let the record be clear that as manager of the bill, I do not necessarily agree with the debate that was taken between the two Senators in the other body. But if the gentleman from Virginia wishes to insert that in the Record for its hortatory nature, I will not object. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, is it in order to introduce into the Record in this body debate that has been taken in the other body?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 32, the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act. This legislation, which is substantially similar to legislation that passed the House by voice vote in May of 2005, contains important provisions to facilitate efforts by the Department of Justice to prosecute those who exploit the good names of companies by attaching counterfeit marks to substandard products. As amended by the other body, H.R. 32 includes changes to the definition of ``traffic'' contained in Federal counterfeiting statutes to permit the prosecution of persons who import or export counterfeit products or possess counterfeit products with the intent to transport, transfer, or distribute such products. Counterfeiting is a serious problem. Legitimate businesses work hard to build public trust and confidence in their products. When a legitimate company's name is attached to counterfeit products, that company may suffer financial losses and may also have its reputation tarnished as a result. In addition, counterfeit products are often purchased unwittingly by consumers who have come to rely on the quality of a product from a company they know and trust. What unsuspecting consumers of counterfeit products often receive is a low-quality, and potentially dangerous, imitation. Some of these products are such poor imitations of the original that they have caused physical harm to consumers. The FBI has identified counterfeit goods in a wide range of products including pharmaceuticals, automobile parts, airplane parts, baby formula, and children's toys. The U.S. automobile industry has reported a number of instances of brake failure caused by counterfeit brake pads manufactured from wooden chips. Counterfeits of other products, such as prescription or over-the-counter medications, may have serious health consequences if consumed by consumers. Under this legislation, section 2320 of title 18 would be expanded to include penalties for those who traffic in counterfeit labels, symbols, or packaging of any type knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied. Additionally, H.R. 32 would require the forfeiture of any property derived directly or indirectly from the proceeds of the violations as well as any property used, or intended to be used, in relation to the offense. It also requires that restitution be paid to the owner of the mark that was counterfeited. In fiscal year 2003, the Department of Homeland Security reported 6,500 seizures of counterfeit-branded goods including cigarettes, books, apparel, handbags, toys, and electronic games with an estimated street value of $94 million. According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the number of seizures for violations of intellectual property rights increased by 11.8 percent between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 to 7,255 seizures for an estimated value of $139 million. Fortune 500 companies are spending between $2 million and $4 million a year each to fight the counterfeiters. The counterfeiting of manufactured goods produces staggering losses to businesses across the United States and around the world. Counterfeit products deprive the Treasury of tax revenues, add to the national trade deficit, subject consumers to health and safety risks, and leave consumers without any legal recourse when they are financially or physically injured by counterfeit products. In addition, established links between counterfeiting, terrorism, and organized crime have made this a priority for Federal law enforcement agencies. H.R. 32 will help the Federal Government stop the wave of counterfeit products flooding the marketplace. Before closing, I would like to thank and congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the author of the House-passed legislation, for his tireless efforts to address the counterfeiting problem. He has crafted a good piece of legislation that has broad bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support this important 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 and include extraneous material on H.R. 32 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 32) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit marks.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this is a good resolution, I urge all Members to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 335) honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 97th anniversary.

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 Concurrent Resolution 335 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 335, a resolution honoring the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 97th anniversary. This resolution recognizes that the NAACP has played an important role in helping to ensure that our constitutional guarantees are extended to all citizens. Founded on the centennial of Republican President and Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln's birthday in 1909, the NAACP represents America's oldest civil rights organization. Through members such as Rosa Parks, who ignited the national civil rights movement, and former Justice Thurgood Marshall, whose leadership led to the landmark legal victory in Brown v. Board of Education, the NAACP has helped galvanize efforts to promote the promise of equality that our Constitution envisioned. Through nonviolent means, the NAACP led the Nation's effort to seek passage of the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968 civil rights acts. Challenging Federal, State, and local officials and governments to accord equal legal treatment to all citizens, the NAACP has sought to promote racial equality in areas such as education, employment, housing, and public facilities. In 1965, the NAACP led the movement to seek passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most significant pieces of legislation passed during the 20th century. Committed to extending the protections of the 15th amendment and the Voting Rights Act to all African Americans, the NAACP worked tirelessly to register tens of thousands of new voters despite threats of violence. The NAACP has helped advance each reauthorization effort, including in 1982, when I was privileged to lead that bipartisan effort with my Democratic colleagues. I will lead that bipartisan effort with my Democratic colleagues again this spring when the Voting Rights Act is once again renewed. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to recognize the NAACP for their contributions toward equality in America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt). (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time as well.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution which commemorates the life and career of former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor upon her retirement from the United States Supreme Court. Justice O'Connor's 24 years on the Supreme Court capped a distinguished four-decade career of public service. Born in El Paso, Texas, on March 26, 1930, and raised in rural Arizona, O'Connor served on the Law Review at Stanford Law School and took just 2 years to finish the normal 3-year curriculum. She graduated third in a class of 102, which included former Chief Justice of the United States William H. Rehnquist. Unable to find work at law firms that at the time refused to hire female attorneys, she became a deputy county attorney in San Mateo County, California. This was the first of many public sector jobs Justice O'Connor held throughout her career. She served as the assistant attorney general of Arizona from 1965 to 1969, and then in the Arizona State senate from 1969 to 1975. In 1973, Justice O'Connor became the first woman in any State to become the majority leader of a State senate. She began her career as a jurist in 1975 when she was elected to become a judge in the Maricopa County Superior Court. She was subsequently appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1979 and served in that capacity until President Ronald Reagan nominated her to fill the seat of former Justice Potter Stewart on August 19, 1981. The U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Justice O'Connor on September 21, 1981, and she was sworn in 4 days later, making her the 102nd, and first female, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. She served a decisive role in crafting the majority opinion in many important cases, but perhaps her greatest accomplishment was in serving as a role model to countless women. Indeed, at the time Justice O'Connor graduated from Stanford Law School, women comprised just 4 percent of all law school students. By 2004, women accounted for approximately half of all students enrolled in law schools. Throughout her entire career, Justice O'Connor put public service first. Even as she announced her retirement on July 1, 2005, she agreed to serve until the President could nominate and the Senate confirm her replacement. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite) for introducing this resolution. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it, and in wishing Justice O'Connor a happy and relaxing retirement with her husband, John. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite), the author of the resolution.