F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled why anybody would oppose this amendment. The amendment simply states that if you cannot be admitted to the United States because you are affiliated with a terrorist organization, then you can be deported if you get in through one way or another. We have a big problem with illegal aliens crossing both the northern and the southern border. If you do not go through the passport check and enter the United States illegally and you could not enter the United States legally because you were a part of a terrorist organization, then if this amendment goes down, you cannot kick them out. So it seems to me that if you cannot get in and it is illegal for you to get in and you do get in, anyhow, illegally, or by fooling an immigration inspector, then the government ought to have the power to be able to deport these people. The amendment is as simple as that, meaning if they do get in when they should not, they should be able to be removed and sent out of the country and make America safer. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hostettler amendment, which I believe deals with the issue of compliance with the torture amendment in a humane manner that will safeguard the safety of the American people. Let me say why this is necessary. Under current law, as interpreted by the courts, a criminal who has committed a crime or conspired to commit a crime in another country, or someone who is on a terrorist watch list can come to the United States. When they get here, they claim asylum. It takes a while to adjudicate asylum applications. They also can say if he is immediately deported, then he would be tortured if he went back home. So the way it stands now under the current law, that person would be out in society free to commit crimes, free to commit terrorist acts until the time comes for the asylum hearing. And then if the person were found not to be eligible for asylum, they still could not be deported if they thought that they would be tortured when they come back home. So if we cannot send them home under the torture convention, and that is the case in many Middle Eastern countries, and we cannot detain them, then they are out on the street posing a danger to society. What the Hostettler amendment does in this circumstance is say that they can be detained. And there are procedural safeguards in the Hostettler amendment that set up standards for detention and require a review every 6 months. If my colleagues vote against this amendment, they are going to have these people out on the street. They should not be out on the street. They should be detained or deported. If we cannot deport them, then let us give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to detain them. Pass the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), my colleague.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate since it began several hours ago. And those who are promoting the Menendez substitute, time and time again, criticize the base bill, H.R. 10, for extraneous and unrelated issues. Mr. Chairman, let me be blunt. Many of these extraneous and unrelated issues are designed to prevent terrorists from coming to our borders; or, if they get inside the United States, making sure that they do not game the system to be able to stay here and have the time to plot to do ill to America and its people and its values. I would like to talk about a couple of these issues. First of all, aliens who apply for American drivers' licenses will have to present a passport. We know that the driver's license is the type of ID that is used at airports and other transportation facilities, as well as to prove a person's age when they are buying alcohol or tobacco. If the driver's license that is issued by a State Department of Motor Vehicles is based on phony and unsecure identification, then that person can use the result of the use of the phony and unsecure identification to be able to do a lot of things, including hijack airplanes and get on them and fly those airplanes into buildings. We have heard a lot about some of the changes in the immigration law that are contained in the base bill but not in the Menendez substitute. Let me say that those changes in the immigration law are designed to get at people who are criminals, and not United States citizens, and deal with them, like the deportation of criminal aliens and those that wish to use the asylum laws to game our system, like Sheikh Rahman did when he was plotting the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. There is a difference between illegal aliens who wish to game the system and those that overstay their visas and those people from other countries who wish to come here to live legally and peacefully. And unless we tighten up the system, it is this latter group that are going to end up being tarred with the sins of the former group. The provisions in the base H.R. 10 bill that deal with expedited removal, et cetera, are designed to protect legal immigrants to the United States so that they do not have to pay for the sins of those who wish to commit crimes and acts of terrorism. That is why those provisions ought to stay in this bill and not be stricken out during the amendatory process. The base bill is a good bill. It makes America safer than the Menendez substitute and the Senate-passed bill and ought to be approved. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 10. On September 11, 2001, foreign terrorists attacked the United States without provocation in a failed effort to crush our spirit and our resolve. In the last 3 years Congress has taken bold bipartisan steps to strengthen the ability of the law enforcement intelligence community to protect the American people against future terrorist attacks. The Committee on the Judiciary has played a central role in addressing vulnerabilities that the terrorists exploited on 9/11. Bipartisan passage of the PATRIOT Act, the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act, the Homeland Security Act, and other legislation have made America safer; but there is still much more work to be done. In November of 2002 President Bush created the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. I supported the President's creation of this independent commission, and I am pleased that this bill implements and addresses its recommendations and findings. H.R. 10 provides specific legislative substance to those recommendations. First, the creation of the National Intelligence Director, then the establishment of a National counterterrorism Center in title I are reforms that will ensure that the wall of separation between intelligence and law enforcement is never again exploited by terrorists. In addition, section 1112 codifies the laudable efforts of the FBI to better assist and thwart terrorist attacks before they occur. The Judiciary sections in title II enhance penalties for terrorism hoaxes; increase penalties for supporting, financing, or cooperating with terrorist organizations; expand the scope of laws that prohibit the shipments or use of weapons of mass destruction; provide additional funding to combat terrorist financing; and enhance the use of biometrics to reduce terrorist threats against air travel. Several 9/11 hijackers either should not have been admitted to the United States or violated the terms of their visas. Title III of the legislation contains important provisions to enhance border security and reduce opportunities for terrorists who enter and stay in the United States. As the 9/11 staff report on terrorist travel declared, ``The challenge for national security in an age of terrorism is to prevent the people who may pose overwhelming risk from entering the United States undetected.'' The Judiciary sections of title III require Americans returning from most parts of the Western Hemisphere to possess passports; require Canadians seeking entry into the United States to present a passport or other secure identification; authorize additional immigration agents and investigators; reduce the risk of identity and document fraud; provide for the expedited removal of illegal aliens; limit asylum abuse by terrorists; and streamline the removal of terrorists and other criminal aliens. These provisions reflect both commission recommendations and legislation that was pending in the House. Finally, I am pleased that this legislation safeguards the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. These provisions establish a privacy officer in the office of the NID; require Federal agencies to prepare a privacy impact analysis during rulemaking process; and direct the head of each Federal agency with law enforcement or antiterrorism functions to appoint a chief privacy officer. The bill reflects careful, thoughtful and principled consideration of the 9/11 Commission's bipartisan recommendations and staff report. Unlike some other proposals, this legislation does not merely transcribe sometimes vague proposals. Rather, it does the hard work of implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations with the legislative clarity and depth they deserve. H.R. 10 also received the full committee deliberation that the House committee process provides. The committee process greatly enhanced the quality of this legislation. America has so far been spared another large-scale attack within our border since 9/11. Yet the terror in Beslan, Russia, just weeks ago chillingly reminds us that the global threat of terrorism has not receded nor has the need for vigilance and foresight. While much has already been done, much remains to be done. Passage of H.R. 10 will make America safer still, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I am also happy to put in the Record, a letter dated October 7, 2004, from the 9/11 Families for a Secure America that states, ``we strongly support H.R. 10 and oppose all the alternatives that have been proposed. The reason is simple: H.R. 10 is the only bill that addresses the recommendations on pages 385-390 of the 9/11 Commission's report.'' I would include this letter in the Record at this point. 9/11 Families for a Secure America, New York, New York, October 7, 2004. Dear Members of the House of Representatives: Over the past few weeks, several articles in the press and statements from individuals have implied falsely that the families of victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks support alternatives to H.R. 10. Our organization, 9/11 Families for a Secure America, represents hundreds of families of those murdered on 9/11, and we strongly support H.R. 10 and oppose all the alternatives that have been proposed. The reason is simple: H.R. 10 is the only bill that addresses the recommendations on pages 385-90 of the 9/11 Commission's report. Family members of 9/11 victims worked long and hard to have an independent commission appointed to investigate the attacks. Now that the Commission has completed its task and presented Congress with its recommendations, we believe that Congress must address all of the 41 recommendations, including those relating to immigration policy. We will be satisfied with nothing less. All of the 9/11 family members with whom we have been in contact agree that immigration reform is a key component of the implementation of the Commission's recommendations. Sadly, some of our elected officials have misled 9/11 families by convincing them that no legislation will pass this year if we insist that immigration reform be part of it, because immigration is simply ``too controversial.'' We are appalled that any public official would suggest that national security is ``too controversial'' to be addressed. We applaud the House Leadership for making security their top priority and we strongly urge all Members of the House to support H.R. 10. We have read the immigration provisions in H.R. 10, and we have compared them to the Commission's recommendations. The provisions some have labeled ``extraneous and unrelated'' are, in fact, clearly and directly related to the Commission's findings and to preventing terrorist attacks in this country. The simple fact is that if the 9/11 terrorists have not been able to enter the United States and operate freely in our country--to obtain driver's licenses (over 60 licenses for 19 hijackers), open bank accounts, rent homes and cars, and board airplanes--they would not have been able to murder our loved ones. To pretend otherwise is hypocritical; but more importantly, it is an invitation to future terrorist attacks. Members of Congress have promised us repeatedly over the last three years that they would honor our loved ones who were murdered by implementing the reforms needed to ensure that Americans will never again face the same horror we live with every day. We ask you to stand by your promise and pass H.R. 10, rather than dishonoring us and our loved ones to protect a status quo that aided the murderers who tore apart our families on September 11, 2001. 9/11 FSA Board of Directors Peter & Jan Gadiel, Kent, CT, Parents of James, age 23. Will Sekzer, Detective Sgt (ret'd) NYPD, Sunnyside, NY, Father of Jason, age 31. Diana Stewart, New Jersey, only wife of Michael Stewart. Bill Doyle, Staten Island, NY, Father of Joseph. Joan Molinaro, Staten Island, NY, Mother of Firefighter Carl Molinaro. Bruce DeCell, Staten Island, NY, Father in law of Mark Petrocelli, age 28. Sally Regenhard, Al Regenhard (Det. Sgt. NYPD, Ret'd), Parents of Firefighter Christian Regenhard. Grace Godshalk, Yardley, PA, Mother of William R. Godshalk, age 35. April D. Gallop, Virginia, Pentagon Survivor. Lynn Faulkner, Ohio, Husband of Wendy Faulkner. Colette Lafuente, Poughkeepsie, NY, Wife of Juan LaFuente, WTC visitor. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4661, the ``Internet Spyware Prevention Act of 2004.'' This narrow criminal legislation will deter and allow the prosecution of the worst forms of behavior involving spyware by providing additional tools and resources to criminal prosecutors. I would like to thank the Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for introducing the legislation before us today. Technologies designed to enhance the speed and efficiency of data transfer have fueled the explosive growth of the Internet. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that the same software and technology innovations that have enhanced and personalized usage of the Internet can also provide opportunities for abuse and illegal behavior. Like many other ills on the Internet these latest malicious behaviors cannot be stopped by federal legislation alone. In fact, there is no one silver bullet--legal, regulatory, or technological--to end the misuse of spyware or the related practice of ``phishing.'' But greater consumer awareness and use of available technological countermeasures clearly hold the greatest promise for curbing these abusive practices. Congressional efforts will only help if they focus on behavior--not rapidly changing technology. H.R. 4661 is a good start because it focuses on behavior that is criminal, not on technologies. Unlike some other proposals, this bill does not set up new requirements that dictate how things appear on a computer screen or that bombard a user with unwanted notices. Nor does this bill pose the same dangers of strict liability for legitimate companies who make a mistake. In short, it represents a measured solution to the problem it seeks to correct. I believe that this narrow legislation updating necessary criminal law provisions and emphasizing increased enforcement, rather than broad regulation, is the correct legislative response at this time. I urge may colleagues to support H.R. 4661 and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 389, a resolution honoring the young victims of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing, recognizing the historical significance of the tragic event, and commending the efforts of law enforcement personnel to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice on the occasion of its 40th anniversary. This resolution expresses the sense of the House and of all its Members that the bombing brought shame and sadness to the American community. As we all know, our country has had a difficult history in the struggle to end racial discrimination. Nevertheless, there are some events in our history that are so awful that we must never forget them, even after the racial situation has vastly improved. We are here today on one of these occasions. On Sunday, September 15, 1963, four little girls, Denise McNair, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson and Addie Mae Collins, went to Sunday School to worship and were senselessly murdered by those who practice hate and bigotry. In 1977, 14 years after the crime, Robert Edward Chambliss, one of the four suspects, was convicted of murder. In 1994, 31 years after the crime, another of the suspects, Herman Frank Cash, died before he could be prosecuted. In 2001, 39 years after the crime, Thomas Blanton, Jr., was convicted of murder, and in 2002, the last of the suspects, Bobby Frank Cherry, was also convicted of murder. The law enforcement community deserves to be commended for this 39- year-long investigation that brought justice to the families and friends of Denise, Cynthia, Carole and Addie Mae. The Sixteenth Street Church bombing did lead to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As we remember that tragic bombing, let us also work to meet the goals of the Civil Rights Act so that the deaths of those four girls are not in vain. I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for introducing this resolution. I ask for Members' support in passing it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time as he deems fit.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 389) honoring the young victims of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing, recognizing the historical significance of the tragic event, and commending the efforts of law enforcement personnel to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice on the occasion of its 40th 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 H. Res. 389 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 2742 contains three provisions that will benefit the administrative operations of the U.S. Supreme Court. First, the bill renews until 2008 authority provided under current law that allows the Supreme Court police to provide security for the Justices when they leave the Supreme Court premises. The Supreme Court police offer that protection, and without this extension, their services would be confined to the immediate area of the Court's grounds. In other words, they would not travel with the Justices when they vacation or speak out of the area, a responsibility that is imposed upon the Marshal's Service when necessary. The need for this protection is illustrated by the recent assault on Justice Souter near his home. Second, S. 2742 creates statutory authority for the Court to accept gifts. The scope of this text was narrowed with the Committee on the Judiciary's input and is now limited exclusively to gifts ``pertaining to the history of the Court or its Justices.'' The Court presently may accept gifts based on Comptroller General opinions. Third, this legislation empowers the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, along with the D.C. Superior Court, to adjudicate cases relating to crimes committed in the Supreme Court building and on Court grounds. Under current law, all cases are referred to the D.C. Superior Court. Because some of the crimes committed on Court grounds implicate first amendment rights, the Court and the Department of Justice believe that a Federal court will do a better job of promoting uniform results since it is more experienced in handling constitutional challenges. Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on the Judiciary, in a bipartisan fashion, worked with the Supreme Court and the other body to ensure that S. 2742 is devoid of controversy. These changes are important to the operation of the Court. I urge Members to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. 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 H.R. 4306 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4306) to amend section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act to improve the process for verifying an individual's eligibility for employment, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4306, which would allow employers to electronically complete and store Eligibility Employment Verification Forms, known as Forms I-9. Currently, employers must complete one of these forms for each employee to show that they have verified that the employee is eligible to work in the United States. The employer must then retain that form for at least 3 years and make it available for inspection by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and the Department of Labor. This legislation is straightforward and sensible. It would benefit employers in preparing and storing Forms I-9 and benefit the government in enforcing immigration, antidiscrimination, and the labor laws of our Nation. The current regulation requires employers to retain Forms I-9 ``in their original form or on microfilm or microfiche.'' This regulation, promulgated in 1988, has failed to keep up with modern technology. For this reason, almost all employers have resorted to keeping Forms I-9 in the original format in which they are completed, that is, on paper. With employers required to retain a Form I-9 for each employee for years, American businesses are holding an overwhelming number of the forms today. That is a lot of paper and paper which can easily be lost, damaged, or tampered with. This format is insecure, wasteful, and with the advent of electronic data storage, totally unnecessary. Allowing the electronic completion and storage of Forms I-9 would also aid the men and women charged with enforcing our law, particularly when auditing large employers with multiple outlets spread across the country. In reviewing the Forms I-9 of employers who choose to keep the documents electronically, officers will be able to request one electronic file instead of potentially thousands of paper documents. This legislation would not require employers to electronically complete or store Forms I-9. It would simply permit them to do so if they so choose. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) the author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for calling up this bill which is appropriately named in tribute to our colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), who will retire at the end of this year after having served the citizens of Louisiana for more than a quarter century. This bill is a product of a remarkable collaborative effort that has involved members of the Committee on the Judiciary and Committee on Energy and Commerce. I would like to especially thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his excellent cooperation through this entire process. The manager's amendment to the bill, which the Committee on the Judiciary approved unanimously on July 7, 2004, incorporates H.R. 4501 which was the Committee on Energy and Commerce version of the bill reported on July 22. The manager's amendment incorporates important refinements to both the copyright and communications acts. These provisions are designed to extend for an additional 5 years the license that permits satellite TV companies such as DirecTV and EchoStar to retransmit to their subscribers TV programming shown on distant network stations and superstations. The extension will ensure that Americans who live in rural areas where they have trouble receiving signals from the regular broadcast stations will continue to have access to network TV programming. Significantly, this bill does not simply preserve the status quo for the statutory period. Instead, the bill changes both the copyright and communications acts to ensure, first, that consumers will have greater choice in programming; second, that satellite providers will have greater freedom to deliver the content consumers desire; third, that free, over-the-air local broadcasters will have the opportunity to serve needs that are specific to their communities; and, fourth, the copyright owners will enjoy the first compulsory royalty fee adjustment in nearly 5 years. The amendments have been carefully negotiated and crafted. They have benefited from an open process which has involved at least four committee hearings, the introduction and mark-up of two committee- reported bills to the House, and a willingness to consider numerous refinements to achieve the right policy and to gain consensus. As a result, the bill is supported by numerous organizations including the National Association of Broadcasters, numerous local broadcast stations, and the Capital Broadcasting Company. In addition, the royalty provision contained in the judiciary title has been specifically endorsed by effective stakeholders. This is a culmination of a painstaking effort under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), who encouraged affected parties to negotiate a voluntary agreement. As a result, the section 119 rate provisions contained in the manager's amendment are now supported by the two largest DBS providers, DirecTV and EchoStar; their trade association, the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association, and major copyright owners including the Motion Picture Association and the Office of the Commission of Baseball. Together those entities represent the copyright owners who receive the overwhelming majority of copyright royalties paid under the license and the satellite carriers who make the vast majority of such payments. In return for extending the license to satellite companies, the bill does require the beneficiaries to accept certain reporting requirements. These requirements are designed to protect the legitimate interests of copyright owners and free over-the-air broadcasters. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the contributions of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). We could not have reached this point without his steady work. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for all his help and support during the process. Thanks also go to other key players, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), all of whom have made significant contributions to this effort. I appreciate all their efforts. I am pleased that we have been able to work together in developing this joint bill, and I look forward to building on this success next year. The bill promotes the interests of consumers, satellite providers, broadcasters, and copyright owners. It is a balanced bill and deserves the support of this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4453) to improve access to physicians in medically underserved areas, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on September 22, 2004, the Committee on the Judiciary met and considered this combined Victim Rights-DNA bill. It was reported voted favorably, without amendment, on a voice vote. At the time, I assured my colleagues who raised concerns about the legislation that we would work with them as well as the Department of Justice to address the concerns. I believe this amendment represents a positive compromise in our efforts to address those concerns while protecting victims and ensuring DNA testing will be available to exonerate the innocent and to identify the guilty. In the victims' rights portion of the legislation, we worked out a number of provisions with the authors of that part of the bill and the victims' rights groups to address issues raised by the Department of Justice, the courts, and outside groups. The result was a compromise that I believe effectively addresses the needs of victims of crime to be more involved in the criminal justice process but will not result in delaying court proceedings nor infringing on the right of a defendant to a speedy trial. To address privacy concerns raised about DNA databases, my amendment includes increased penalties for misuse of DNA analyses from $100,000 to $250,000, and the possibility of a year in prison to discourage any person who would seek to misuse DNA for personal gain. The amendment also requires a report to Congress if the Justice Department plans to modify or supplement the core generic markers needed for compatibility with the national DNA database. This is essential to reassure those who raise civil liberty concerns that DNA samples entered into the combined database would not be used for inappropriate purposes. The legislation authorizes a substantial amount of money to provide grants to States to eliminate their DNA backlogs. Some have raised the concern that there may be some States that do not have a substantial backlog and, thus, would not receive funds. To ensure that the States are effectively using their resources, the amendment allows a State that has no DNA backlog to apply for grants for other forensic sciences. With regard to the provision relating to the post-conviction DNA testing, the amendment offers a compromise, as I have previously stated, between those who wish to have no time limit on the ability of convicted persons seeking DNA testing and those who insist on a limitation of time, lest convicted persons game the system by waiting until the witnesses have died or waiting until the evidence has evaporated, thus effectively preventing a retrial. The compromise provides for a 5-year period in which there would be a rebuttable presumption in favor of granting the DNA test. After 5 years, there is a presumption against granting a test unless the court finds that the applicant was incompetent, there is newly discovered DNA evidence, denial would result in a manifest injustice, or for other good cause shown. The amendment also includes tighter language to ensure that defendants cannot make repetitive motions for relief. Because some of my colleagues in the Department of Justice raised concern about the standard for granting a new trial, the amendment increases the standard for obtaining a new trial to require that there be compelling evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal. This represents a compromise from the preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing evidence. With respect to funding prosecution and defense representation in capital cases, the original bill and this amendment do not allow funds to be used directly or indirectly to fund representation in specific capital cases. Additionally, report language on the DNA provision prohibits the creation of capital resource centers. This amendment tightens the provisions relating to the training and appointment of capital counsel. The amendment specifies that no less than 75 percent of the funds shall be used to carry out training for representation and the creation of an effective system at the trial court level. No more than 25 percent of the funds shall be used to carry out training and systems for appellate representation. The amendment also reduces the authorization of grants to States to provide training to defense attorneys and prosecutors, and to establish a system of appointment of counsel in capital cases. Finally, the amendment provides for notification 180 days before the destruction of biological evidence, and provides that the time period will not begin to run until any direct appeal of the conviction was complete. This will ensure that the evidence in the case is preserved to benefit both the defendant and the government if the conviction is reversed. I believe this amendment represents a good compromise package which will help ensure justice for all. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.