F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 196, a resolution recognizing the anniversary of the ratification of the 13th amendment and encouraging the American people to educate and instill pride and purpose into their communities and to observe the anniversary annually with appropriate programs and activities. In his Emancipation Proclamation of 1862, President Lincoln declared that, ``All persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thence forward and forever free.'' However, it took the ratification of the 13th amendment on December 6, 1865 to put an end officially to our Nation's tragic history and to extend to all citizens the promises and guarantees upon which this country was founded. The first of three amendments known as the Civil War amendments, the 13th amendment liberated African Americans, enabling them and all Americans to experience the full meaning of citizenship and equal treatment under the law, including participation in the most fundamental aspects of our Democratic system of Government without regard to race or previous condition of servitude. It is against this backdrop that the modern civil rights moment was born, and in this spirit that the Committee on the Judiciary, under my direction, is now examining certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act that are set to expire in 2007. The 140th anniversary of the 13th amendment is an important mark in our history, and should serve as a reminder to all of our Nation's past. Most importantly, this anniversary provides an opportunity to reaffirm our collective commitment to continue striving toward a color- blind society. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 196) recognizing the anniversary of the ratification of the 13th Amendment and encouraging the American people to educate and instill pride and purpose into their communities and to observe the anniversary annually with appropriate programs and activities.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1400) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 1400 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1400, the Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2005. Over the past several years, there have been an increasing number of alarming reports to the Federal Aviation Administration concerning the aiming of lasers into airplane cockpits. Since 1990 the FAA reports there have been well over 400 incidents and more than 100 in the past year alone. It was not that long ago that there was a frenzy of media coverage surrounding these types of events. While the media coverage may have subsided, the threat has not. Laser pointers, while readily obtainable and relatively inexpensive, are not toys. In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning to parents and school officials concerning handheld laser pointers. The FDA warning stated that ``the light energy that laser pointers can aim into the eye can be more damaging than staring directly at the sun.'' Federal law requires a warning on laser pointers about this potential hazard to the eyes, and that is 21 Code of Federal Regulations 1040. FAA research has shown that laser illuminations can temporarily disorient or disable a pilot, particularly during critical stages of flights such as landings and takeoffs. Direct laser exposure to the eye can even cause temporary blindness. In some cases these laser illuminations can cause permanent damage. In fact, just last year, a laser aimed into a Delta Airlines flight over Salt Lake City injured the eye of one of the plane's pilots. This type of interference, whether it is intentional effort to sabotage a plane or just a misguided prank, should not be tolerated because of the potential for catastrophe. H.R. 1400 is a straightforward, commonsense measure aimed at deterring and prosecuting those who would willfully committ a senseless act of potential sabotage. The bill would impose criminal penalties upon any individual who knowingly aims a laser pointer at an aircraft within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States. These criminal penalties include fines of up to $250,000, and imprisonment of up to 5 years. The bill before us today includes an amendment proposed in mark-up offered by gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). During committee consideration of the bill, the gentlewoman suggested that the bill include a definition for the term ``laser pointer.'' That definition has been added to the bill, and I thank the gentlewoman for her important contribution. Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the author and lead proponent of H.R. 1400, for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4311, which would reauthorize a crucial judicial security measure. Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level judicial branch officials must file annual disclosure reports. In the 105th Congress, we enacted the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, which allows the Judicial Conference to redact statutorily required information in a financial disclosure report where the release of that information could endanger the filer or his or her family. This provision was extended for 4 years in the 107th Congress and is due to expire on December 31 of this year. H.R. 4311 would permanently extend this important component of Federal judicial security. This legislation was recently passed on the House floor on November 9 by a vote of 375-45 as a provision of H.R. 1751; but since the other body has not taken up that bill, I have introduced this freestanding measure. Judges today face a number of threats from convicted criminals seeking revenge against those who have presided over their trial to defendants seeking to influence a judge during a trial. In some cases, Federal judges and their families have been subject to more than just threats, as has been demonstrated by the murder of Judge Joan Lefkow's husband and elderly mother in their own home by a former plaintiff in Chicago earlier this year. Since the authority was enacted in 1998 and renewed in 2001, Federal judges have been able to request the temporary redaction of some or all of the information on their disclosure forms. The Marshals Service must agree that the information on their disclosure forms could be used to harm the judge or his or her family in order for it to be redacted. Disclosure information might seem to some to be an unlikely source of useful information to someone looking to harm a judge. That is a flawed assumption. For example, the fact that a judge's daughter has received a scholarship from a particular college must be reported on that judge's disclosure form. This information can then be used to identify the location of the judge's daughter. Under this existing authority, judges are still required to make semi-annual disclosures and are only allowed to redact information during the time in which a threat exists. Once the threat ends, the information is once again made public. The GAO undertook an audit of this authority in 2004 and found minimal issues. As a strong proponent of government openness and oversight, I recognize the impact of redaction authority. However, I also recognize that judges should not be forced to put their lives on the line or those of their families simply by doing their jobs. This fair and impartial administration of justice requires freedom from fear and intimidation. This legislation helps protect judges and their families from fear of reprisal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 H.R. 4311 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate all of the comments from my friends on the other side of the aisle about what a great bill this is. I thank them for that. It is a great bill. But what we have seen here with this great bill and this necessary bill being brought up in order to protect judges and their families and court personnel is another example of why this House has sunk into partisan politics. Partisan politics should have nothing to do with whether or not we give the judicial conference the authority to redact personal information necessary to protect the safety of judges and their families. But nonetheless, we have heard from three Members on the other side of the aisle in basically making a partisan attack. Mr. Speaker, there is a time for partisan politics and there is a time to deal with the people's business. This bill deals with the people's business. I appreciate the support from the folks on the other side of the aisle, but, Mr. Speaker, this was not the vehicle to launch a partisan attack, and I am sorry that they chose to do so. I urge support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4311) to amend section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1036, the Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act, amends certain technical aspects of the copyright act that were substantively amended by Congress' enactment of the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004. It is appropriate to note the efforts of Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member Howard Berman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, who worked so hard to ensure passage of the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act last year. Enactment of the legislation came only after 20 years of successive efforts to streamline, modernize, and de-conflict the role of the U.S. Copyright Office in administering the various compulsory licenses contained in title 17 of the United States Code. Before discussing the specifics of this bill, I would like to offer some background. By their nature, statutory changes in this area are complex. Proposed changes inevitably affect a number of preexisting and carefully negotiated balances that potentially impact the public and a wide variety of stakeholders. The various compulsory licenses were authorized at differing times, and each is shaped in response to the unique circumstances of commercial licensors and licensees. Nevertheless, each is intended to benefit the public by reducing the transaction costs of certain types of protected works and each requires the Copyright Office to assume certain administrative functions, which may include rate setting, royalty collecting, and royalty distribution functions. It is the interplay between these administrative and adjudicative functions, some of which are fiduciary in nature, that created potential conflicts for the Copyright Office. This problem was addressed in the Reform Act by authorizing the establishment of three copyright royalty judges, or CRJs, who operate independently of the Copyright Office. The CRJs are empowered to consider arguments from participants in contested distribution proceedings, resolve factual disputes, and order distributions. In contrast, the role of the Librarian of Congress and the Copyright Office is limited in such cases to largely ministerial functions such as advising the CRJs and participants in proceedings on certain matters within the substantive expertise of the office and actually effectuating the disbursement of funds in response to a CRJ order. The ad hoc enactment of various compulsory licenses also contributed to a perpetuation of certain inefficiencies and inconsistencies that could only be addressed properly by creating a comprehensive and predictable schedule for rate-setting and distribution proceedings. By enacting the Reform Act last year, Congress took important steps toward protecting the public, the Copyright Office, licensors, and licensees with a more stable and cohesive administrative and adjudicatory construct. But a clear articulation of the respective roles of the Copyright Office and the new CRJs is fundamental to the success of the new system. Unfortunately, as enrolled, the law inadvertently provided in some places that the Librarian was charged with ``authorizing'' the distribution of funds. This language could be interpreted to imply that Congress intended the Librarian to retain a role that clearly had been intended to be exercised by the new CRJs. H.R. 1036 corrects this error to ensure that the Reform Act operates as Congress intended. The Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act includes further noncontroversial stylistic, technical, clarifying, and conforming changes that have been carefully considered and reviewed by Members and staff on both sides of the aisle, the Register of Copyrights, copyright owners, and many of the commercial users who are the beneficiaries of the licenses. When the copyright royalty judge, or CRJ, system is fully implemented, disputes among participants will be settled in a more predictable, rational, and consistent manner; decisions will be improved by the involvement of judges required to possess relevant subject matter expertise; and significant cost savings and efficiencies should accrue to participants. I urge Members to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1036) to amend title 17, United States Code, to make technical corrections relating to copyright royalty judges, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1065, the United States Boxing Commission Act. This is a big government bill that creates a new Federal agency that provides for more regulation and is not self- financing as has been intimated. The top of page 13 of the Energy and Commerce Committee's report uses a CBO estimate that says: ``Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1065 would cost $5 million in 2006 and $26 million over the 2006-2010 period.'' That means that we are adding $26 million to the deficit to regulate one sport. That is not right. The Judiciary Committee received the sequential referral of this bill to consider several provisions within the legislation. The Judiciary Committee has long been involved in issues relating to professional sports, including oversight of the U.S. Olympic Committee, Major League Baseball, and the NCAA. Many are concerned and have raised serious questions about the commercial and legal aspects within the sport of professional boxing. As a result, some have urged the creation of a Federal boxing commission to regulate this sport. The legislation would accomplish that goal. Although the creation of the U.S. Boxing Commission itself does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, significant provisions relating to title 18 of the U.S. Code, which is the criminal code, and the authority of the Attorney General and the commission's executive director are within the committee's purview. During the markup of this bill, the Judiciary Committee adopted a technical change to ensure that the use of administrative subpoenas comports with existing title 18 provisions. Additionally, as amended by the committee, the legislation will now allow a designee of the Attorney General to represent the commission in judicial proceedings rather than requiring the Attorney General himself to do so. Finally, the Judiciary Committee amendment removed the authority of the commission's executive director to make unilateral determinations regarding violations of this act or to bring action in Federal court. This means that such determinations will be required to be made by the full commission before action can be taken. Although these Judiciary Committee amendments improved the legislation, the committee reported the bill with no recommendation, no recommendation, as a result of the concerns of many Members on both sides of the aisle regarding the underlying merits of the legislation. I share these concerns and do not support the goal of the legislation. Notwithstanding the fact that there are well-founded concerns surrounding the support of boxing, I believe that the creation of a boxing commission is unnecessary and urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the author, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam Speaker, my two friends on the other side of the aisle are obfuscating the real issue that is involved. I do not think John Adams and James Madison ever thought of first, third, and fifth graders being asked the questions that were recited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), the author of the resolution. The question here is whether this decision is right or wrong. It is wrong, and that is why the resolution ought to be passed. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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 support of H.R. 1442, which completes the codification of title 46, United States Code, relating to shipping as positive law. The ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Conyers, and I jointly introduced this legislation on March 17, 2005. The bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel as a part of the program required by title 2 United States Code section 285(b) to prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary, one title at a time, a complete compilation, restatement and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States. This bill, as well as any other bill submitted by the Office of Law Revision Counsel under this program, makes no substantive changes in existing law nor is it intended to do so. Thus, Members should understand that because of the nature of this bill, supporting it does not imply support of the underlying provisions that are being reorganized and cleaned up. This is a necessary bill. I urge Members to support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 866) to make technical corrections to the United States Code.