F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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. 1036) to amend title 17, United States Code, to make technical corrections relating to copyright royalty judges, as amended.

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 the following bills and resolution to be considered today: H.R. 3647, H.R. 1036, H.R. 866, H.R. 1442, and House Resolution 547.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 547, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit grossly infringed on established parental rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District. In a decision that startled even veteran observers of the Ninth Circuit, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel held in Fields v. Palmdale School District that parents ``have no constitutional right to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.'' This case involved a survey given to 7- to 10-year-old children that contains, among others, 10 specific questions about sex. The Palmdale School District sent parents of first, third and fifth grade students at the Mesquite Elementary School in Palmdale, California, a letter requesting consent to administer a psychological assessment questionnaire to their children. The letter failed to inform the parents that some of the questions expressly involved sexual topics. Seven parents, including one set of parents that did not return the consent form for their child, were still given the questionnaire, filed suit in Federal court against the school district upon learning from their children of the sexual nature of some of the questions. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled against the parents concluding that ``once parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished.'' This decision presupposes that the school attended by the children is always a matter of parental choice. As we all know, many parents do not have such a choice, and they should not be forced to forfeit their parental rights when their children enter the schoolhouse gate. Moreover, the flawed logic of this decision has a disproportionate impact on parents who, for financial and other reasons, cannot send their children to schools more responsive to parental rights. Parents should not be required to involuntarily relinquish their right to direct the upbringing and control of their children. The Ninth Circuit decision compels this outcome by divesting parents of their right to object to their children being exposed to sexual or other information in a school setting. This holding is inconsistent with constitutional precedent and established parental rights. The Supreme Court recognized in Meyer v. Nebraska that the liberty guaranteed by the 14th amendment encompasses ``the power of parents to control the education of their children.'' The court reaffirmed this fundamental right in Pierce v. Society of Sisters and emphasized that ``the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.'' According to the court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, this duty ``must be read to include the inculcation of moral standards, religious beliefs and elements of good citizenship.'' Despite the fact that the due process clause of the 14th amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children, the Ninth Circuit concluded ``that parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on sex to their students in any forum or manner they select.'' This decision sets a dangerous precedent, threatening the parental rights that are firmly grounded in our Nation's Constitution and traditions. I urge my colleagues to affirm their support for parental rights by supporting passage of this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 547) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on parental rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3647, to render nationals of Denmark eligible to enter the United States as nonimmigrant traders and investors. E-2 visas are nonimmigrant visas available to nationals of countries with which the United States maintains a treaty of commerce. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, aliens from such countries who wish to come to the United States to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which they have invested, or are actively in the process of investing a substantial amount of capital, may apply for entry on an E-2 visa. Alien employees of a treaty investor may also receive E-2 visas if they are coming to the United States to engage in duties of an executive or supervisory character, or, if employed in a lesser capacity, if they have special qualifications that make the services to be rendered essential to the efficient operation of that enterprise. There is no numerical cap on E-2 visas. An alien may be admitted initially for a period of 2 years and can apply for extensions in 2- year increments. The United States has entered into treaties of commerce containing language similar to the E-2 visas since as far back as 1815, when we entered into a Convention to Regulate Commerce with the United Kingdom. Currently, the nationals of 74 countries are eligible for E-2 status. In fiscal year 2003, 24,506 aliens, including dependents, were granted E-2 visas. Nationals of Denmark are already eligible for an E-1, treaty trader, visa pursuant to the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Denmark of October 1, 1951. The U.S. and Denmark signed a protocol to that treaty on May 2, 2001, that would also grant Danes eligibility for E-2 visas. However, that protocol has not been ratified due to the broad objections raised on both sides of the Capitol regarding the inclusion of immigration provisions in trade agreements. Accordingly, the Danish embassy has requested that Denmark be granted E-2 privileges through the normal legislative process. This legislation would accomplish that. Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the importance of formal congressional consideration of any changes to United States immigration law through congressional legislative process. Over the last several years, Congress has witnessed efforts to circumvent its exclusive authority under the Constitution to amend our Nation's immigration law. The inclusion of temporary entry or other immigration provisions in bilateral or multilateral trade agreements undermines the constitutional authority of Congress and has been strongly opposed by Members on both sides of the aisle. This legislation is the product of the open legislative process that revisions to our immigration law deserve, and I urge other nations seeking changes to U.S. immigration law to follow a similar legislative course. I appreciate that the embassy of Denmark has sought E-2 visas the right way, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam 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. 3647) to render nationals of Denmark eligible to enter the United States as nonimmigrant traders and investors, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the Scott amendment which eliminates the death penalty for the killing of a federally funded public safety officer, such as a judge, police officer, firefighter, prosecutor, or a family member of a public safety officer. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 52 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the United States in 2003 and 56 officers were killed in the previous year. In the 10-year period from 1994 through 2003, a total of 616 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in the United States, 100 of whom were killed in ambush situations, entrapment or premeditated situations. If not for the advent of bulletproof vests, an additional 400 officers would have been killed over the last decade, except for the fact that they were wearing protective armor. Of those responsible for killing police officers between 1994 and 2003, 521 had a prior criminal arrest, including 153 who had a prior arrest for assaulting a police officer or resisting arrest, 264 for a crime of violence, 230 for a weapons violation, and 23 for murder. Recent events include the killing of an individual with a grenade in the Seattle Federal courthouse; the killing of Judge Roland Barnes, his deputy sheriff and a Federal agent in Atlanta; the murders of Federal Judge Lefkow's husband and mother; and the murders immediately outside the Tyler, Texas, courthouse. These recent attacks follow on the heels of the 1998 bombing of Circuit Judge Robert Vance in the 11th Circuit; the 1998 shooting of Judge Daronoco; and the 1979 shooting of Judge Wood outside his San Antonio home. According to the Administrative Office, there are almost 700 threats a year made against Federal judges, and security detail have had to be assigned to those Federal judges because of the threats of attacks. The Secure Access bill authorizes, but does not require prosecution of federally funded State and local judges and first responders if there is a threat or an assault against them. First, jurisdiction only exists when it involves Federal funding and protection of Federal investment. Second, under current Federal law, the Department of Justice pays survivor benefits to families of first responders who are killed in the line of duty. The Federal interest in minimizing these assaults and murders is obvious and cost-saving. The intent underlying this provision is to authorize Federal prosecution after State and local prosecutors and Federal prosecutors determine where such prosecution would best be brought. Some States do not have a death penalty and Federal prosecution of a cop killer may be warranted. Federal prosecution may be advantageous over State or local prosecutions for a variety of reasons, such as laws relating to evidence, statute of limitations, or other reasons. The provisions do not require Federal prosecution, but only add another tool in the arsenal to protect law enforcement officers, judges, and other courthouse personnel. The need for a swift and effective death penalty is significant in the case of violent offenders who assault and kill law enforcement officers, judges and witnesses. Several scientifically valid statistical studies that examine a period of years and control for national trends consistently show that capital punishment is a substantial deterrent and saves lives. Recent estimates show that each execution deters 18 murders. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman from New York is absolutely correct in that there was an oversight in that State and local courts would not be eligible for the four grant programs that the gentleman outlined in his remarks. This amendment corrects the oversight, and I am happy to support it and hope that the committee adopts it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Scott amendment. It strips all of the mandatory minimum penalties out of the bill. The amendment seeks to strip the core provisions of the bill. Let me remind everyone of the nature of the problem we face today. More than 57,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in 2003, or one in every 10 officers serving in the United States. The numbers have been increasing since 1999, even as every other crime has decreased or held steady. The Executive Director of the Fraternal Order of Police noted recently ``There is less respect for authority in general and police officers specifically. The predisposition of criminals to use firearms is probably at the highest point of our history.'' The secure access proposal addresses this problem by sending a message of deterrence. The existing penalty for assaulting a law enforcement officer is 8 years, 15 if with a weapon. Under current criminal law, a false statement made to an FBI agent in a terrorism investigation carries the same penalty as a violent assault of a police officer. Federal, State, and local judges have suffered from rising threats, and deadly attacks have been directed against judges as well as courthouse participants. According to the Administrative Office of United States Courts, there are almost 700 threats made a year against Federal judges, and in numerous cases Federal judges have had security details assigned to them for fear of attack by members of terrorist organizations, violent gangs, and disgruntled litigants. H.R. 1751 provides a reasonable penalty structure for assaults against judges, prosecutors and public safety officers, as well as members of their families. The bill adopts a penalty structure requiring 1 to 10 years for an assault that results in bodily injury, such as a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, disfigurement, pain or illness; 3 to 12 years for substantial bodily injury, temporary but substantial disfigurement, temporary but substantial loss or impairment; and 10 to 30 years for serious bodily injury, substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty. These penalties roughly correspond to existing guideline ranges and simply ensure that Federal judges impose the required penalty, but can exercise discretion to a higher penalty if warranted. Law enforcement officers deserve our fullest protection, brazen criminals show less and less regard for the police and the hard work that they do. Our message is simple: If you attack a police officer or kill a police officer, you will be going to jail for a long time. As revised, the mandatory minimums are commensurate with existing Federal sentencing guidelines, but in the absence of a mandatory minimum guideline system, there is too much at risk to leave the sentencing to judges who have already demonstrated their willingness to depart from the guidelines when presented with a case. Mandatory minimum penalties are effective for ensuring consistency in sentencing. Since the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, judges now have virtually unlimited discretion to ignore the Federal sentencing guidelines and impose whatever sentence they like, all to the detriment of public safety and fairness and sentencing through consistent and clear punishment schemes. Judges are now completely unaccountable. Congress has a duty to set sentencing policies for Federal crimes and to make sure that judges impose such sentences. Unfortunately, that has not been the experience since the Booker decision. Once freed from mandatory sentencing schemes, Federal judges are now starting to ignore the guidelines: In one of every 10 criminal cases, they are imposing sentences below the previously mandated guideline range. In a recently released report, the Sentencing Commission data confirmed that this trend is continuing, and specifically broke out such data by circuits, which showed that judges in the Second and Ninth Circuits followed the guideline ranges in imposing sentences in a substantially lower percentage than the other circuits. Sentences now for similar crimes are being handed in disparate fashion, depending on the region where the offense occurs. This is not equal justice under the law in the Federal system. Those judges, when they go to the Supreme Court, ought to look at the motto that is underneath the roof of the Court at the main entrance when they walk in. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a very good amendment. It is not acceptable, but it is something that I enthusiastically support.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer this manager's amendment to clarify that offenders who attempt to murder or conspire to murder a Federal judge, Federal law enforcement officer, or a federally funded public safety officer are subject to a penalty of life imprisonment. If death results, the death penalty can be applied to offenders who are principals. In addition, the amendment adds Indian tribes as eligible entities for court security grants in section 18 of the bill. Finally, the amendment clarifies the language as to the coordination between the Marshals Service and the Administrative Office on security issues. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to this important bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the majority was recently, within the last 2 or 3 minutes, given a copy of this motion to recommit. This comes as a complete surprise. This is not the way to legislate, Mr. Speaker. I object.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have had a pretty extensive debate on this motion to instruct. I think the motion to instruct is constructive and would urge the Members to support it. On the other hand, after listening to the debate that has been going on here for the last 40 or 45 minutes or so, what we have heard from the people who have complained about the PATRIOT Act is the potential for abuse rather than abuse itself. I would point out that there is a potential for abuse of practically everything law enforcement does. There is a tremendous amount of discretion that the law and the Constitution have given to our law enforcement personnel, to our prosecutors, to those who apply for search warrants as well as other tools that law enforcement utilizes to keep us safe and to try to track down those who commit crimes or who conspire to commit crimes or acts of terrorism. I do not know why there seems to be a greater suspicion that law enforcement already abuses provisions under the PATRIOT Act rather than other provisions of law which are not sunset, including the national security letters, because the facts simply are not there that there has been abuse. What I would like to ask the Members as we are debating the PATRIOT Act as it goes forward through conference and to the floor is to look at what the Justice Department has done; and where the Justice Department has done it right, the Justice Department should be told they have done it right. And that means eliminating the sunsets from those areas where it has done it right. And where there has to be a greater scrutiny on it, such as the two provisions in the House-passed bill and the lone wolf provision that are being talked about, we can talk about future sunsets; and I support the concept of doing that. But simply going around and painting with a broad brush the Justice Department for the potential of abuse which has not happened, I think, is unfair and does not go to the debate of whether the PATRIOT Act has actually served to protect the people of the United States without trampling on their civil liberties. It has done that. That is why it is a good law and that is why some provisions should be made permanent and some provisions should be sunsetted to be looked at in the future. Mr. Speaker, again I urge the Members to support the motion to instruct. When we come back with a conference report, I will urge the Members to support that as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1751.