F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Reclaiming my time, I do not know. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho. And I know that an underlying argument on both sides of the aisle is whether one likes or dislikes the controversial decisions the Ninth Circuit has rendered from time to time. I would hope that we would disregard that and look at the statistics, that the Ninth Circuit has become unwieldy. I agree with the gentleman from Idaho that the Ninth Circuit is going to get split sooner or later. I believe that he has an amendment to accomplish this split in the best manner possible. Now, let us look at why the Ninth Circuit needs to be split. First, it has 48 judges already serving, seven more are created in this bill, and that is a figure that approaches twice the number of total judges in the next largest circuit. Second, the population of the territory within the Ninth Circuit is 56 million people, and that is roughly one-fifth of the Nation's population, and 25 million more than the population of the next largest circuit. The Ninth Circuit comprises nearly 40 percent of the geographic area of the United States. So that means, to come to get your appeal heard, one, in many instances, has to travel much farther, to San Francisco, than litigants in the other circuits to get to where those circuits sit. The Ninth Circuit has the most number of appeals filed and the highest percentage increase in number of appeals filed, the most number of appeals still pending, and the longest median time until disposition. Now, having said all of these statistics, why should we delay in dealing with the split of the Ninth Circuit? There are some who have proposed only one additional circuit be created, whether it includes all the States outside of California, Hawaii, Guam, and the northern Mariana Islands or whether the circuit should be divided into three pieces. I think that what the gentleman from Idaho has done in dividing the Ninth Circuit into three, a new Ninth Circuit, a new 12th Circuit and a new 13th Circuit will make for the most efficient administration of justice. I grant the point that most of the appeals arise from California, and that is why the gentleman's amendment has all seven of the new judges, five permanent and two temporary, sit with the newly reconstituted Ninth Circuit in the State of California. This is an idea whose time has come. If we delay adopting this amendment, we are just going to have more administrative problems caused by higher caseloads, so we might as well do it now; and I would urge the committee to support the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, this is the wrong time, the wrong procedure, and the wrong amendment to deal with what is a very legitimate problem. If the procedure that was outlined by the gentleman from California's motion to recommit were in place at the time Justice Scalia and Vice President Cheney went on their duck-hunting trip, the other eight Justices of the Supreme Court would decide whether or not Justice Scalia could vote on the case that Vice President Cheney was a named litigant in. This can be subject to extreme misuse as people could file complaints again Justices and ask for recusals to take them out and to take their votes out if they felt that the Justices would vote the wrong way. And the same thing under the gentleman from California's motion to recommit would apply at the district court and the Court of Appeals level, and that is whether a judge's colleagues will determine whether or not a judge has a vote on a piece of litigation that is coming before the court. Now, I concede the fact that there is a problem that the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) has recognized; but his solution is the wrong solution. The correct solution is to allow the commission that has been appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist and which is headed by Justice Steven Bryer, looking into judicial misconduct statutes and how they should be changed to come up with a recommendation that can either be enacted into law by statute or adopted as a rule of civil or criminal procedure. If legislation is necessary, we should go through the normal legislative process in looking at all of the angles of the proposed solution to make sure that what we are doing is right. I know there is a problem, but the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) is not right. We should allow people to study this more dispassionately and thus vote down the motion to recommit. I ask for a ``no'' vote. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I must offer this amendment to S. 878, but its passage will avoid a problem highlighted by the Congressional Budget Office and its cost estimate for the bill. Budget rules require us to stay within a 1-year and 5-year budget authority score for direct spending. The bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary comports with the 1-year spending threshold imposed by the budget rule. Unfortunately, however, the 5-year score exceeds the corresponding threshold by roughly $5.5 million. To cure this defect, I was faced with choosing either deleting meritorious circuit and district judgeships from the bill or retaining all of the judgeships while staggering their implementation over a longer period of time. I have chosen the latter option as the better of the two, and this amendment reflects that. While some judicial districts will have to wait longer for additional judges under this plan, at least those judges will have been authorized for the relatively near future. Assuming S. 878 is enacted, it will also be possible for a future Congress, perhaps the 109th, to provide the additional funding necessary to change the statute and accelerate the implementation dates for those judgeships that cannot be created prior to fiscal year 2005. That said, my amendment would implement 11 circuit judgeships and convert the four temporary district judgeships to permanent seats in fiscal year 2005. Existing temporary seats do not score at all, and the related costs of the 11 circuit judgeships easily comply with the first-year threshold requirement. For the next 5 fiscal years, through fiscal year 2010, the figure staggers the implementation of the remaining district judgeships at the rate of eight per year. In other words, eight new district judgeships are added in fiscal 2006, eight more in fiscal 2007, and so on through 2010. In the last year, fiscal year 2011, the remaining seven district judgeships are officially authorized. I am sure that each of us could develop a different priority list detailing which judgeships would be implemented in a given fiscal year. I have tried to be fair by arranging the list based on need as defined by the Judicial Conference criteria. We have received an informal assurance from CBO that this amendment will lower the 5-year budget authority estimate for direct spending below the $34.5 million requirement imposed on the Committee on the Judiciary. My staff has also worked closely with the Committee on the Budget on this matter, and I understand this amendment will satisfy their concerns. I appreciate their contributions to this effort. In conclusion, I urge the Members to adopt this amendment, a necessary change that will bring us closer to authorizing the first omnibus judgeship bill since 1990.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Judicial Conference of the United States reviews the judgeship needs of United States courts every 2 years to determine if any of the courts need additional judges. The Conference completed its last review in March of 2003, and then submitted its recommendations to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary. I am pleased that the bill as reported by the Committee mirrors that recommendation. Thus, these are judgeships being created based upon demonstrated need and not upon politics. The Judicial Conference bases its recommendations on a variety of factors that indicate the needs of various courts. Most importantly, it sets a benchmark caseload standard for considering judgeship requests at 430 weighted cases for individual judges on the district courts and 500 adjusted case filings for the three-judge panels on the courts of appeal. Aside from the numbers, it also considers additional criteria, including senior judge and magistrate judge assistance, geographical factors, unusual caseload complexity, and temporary caseload increases or decreases. Based on these criteria, the Conference's current proposal recommends that Congress establish 11 new judgeships in four courts of appeal and 46 new judgeships in 24 district courts. The Conference also recommends that five temporary district court judgeships created in 1990 be established as permanent positions. Many of these needs have existed for many years. The other body passed Senate 878 on May 22, 2003. The Senate bill created 12 permanent district judgeships, two temporary district judgeships, and a number of bankruptcy judgeships. This version of S. 878 also converted two temporary district judgeships to permanent status. During our September 9 markup on the legislation, the Committee on the Judiciary revised the bill in two major ways. First, we added all the circuit and district judgeships recommended by the U.S. Judicial Conference that were not included in the Senate bill. This brings the total number of new judgeships in the bill to 58, 11 circuit court seats and 47 district court seats. In addition, four other temporary district judgeships are converted to permanent judgeships. The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property conducted an oversight hearing on Federal judgeship needs last year, and we are satisfied as a committee that the submissions developed by the Judicial Conference are meritorious. I emphasize that all the judgeships in the bill before the House could more than satisfy the threshold requirements developed by the Judicial Conference. Second, all of the bankruptcy judgeships set forth in S. 878 as passed by the other body were stricken. These will be dealt with in the context of the bankruptcy reform legislation which the House has passed and which is currently pending before the other body. Mr. Speaker, whatever our occasional differences with the third branch, it is our responsibility to ensure that our Federal courts have the resources necessary to allow citizens to seek legal redress in civil disputes and to permit the prosecution of criminal offenses when appropriate. This is a basic function of government. I urge the Members to support the underlying text of S. 878, as well as the amendment that I will shortly offer to ensure that this bill does not run afoul of the Budget Act, based on the CBO score that accompanies this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve 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 S. 878.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote for S. 2363, a bill to revise and extend the authorization of appropriations for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Both the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the full Senate passed this bill without amendment by unanimous consent. Following Senate action, the bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary where the bill was reported favorably by voice vote without amendment. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America had its first beginnings almost 150 years ago. The first club was organized in 1860 by a group of women who believed disadvantaged boys should have access to a positive, structured environment outside of school. By 1906, several boys clubs had joined together and formed the Federated Boys Club in Boston. In 1956, the Boys Clubs of America received a congressional charter and celebrated its 50th anniversary. Recognizing that girls are also a vital part of the Clubs' membership, the name was changed to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America in 1990. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America continue to provide a positive learning environment for children throughout this country. The Clubs have numerous nationally recognized programs that address issues pertinent to today's youth. More than 25 programs are available to youngsters on topics including education, leadership development, the arts and substance-abuse prevention. Of the several million children that benefit from the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, a large majority live in our inner cities and urban areas. These programs are essential to providing resources and nourishing skills necessary for young people to become successful, productive adults. The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 established a program to provide Department of Justice grant support for starting new Boys and Girls Clubs in distressed areas. The current version of the law calls for the establishment of 1,200 new clubs by the end of 2005. S. 2363 will increase that number by 300 to a total of 1,500. Current law also calls for a goal of 4,000 total clubs by January 1, 2007. S. 2363 increases that goal to at least 5,000 such facilities in operation by January 1, 2010. Additionally, the bill extends through fiscal year 2010 the authority of the director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the Department of Justice to make grants to the organization to establish such facilities. It authorizes appropriations of $80 million for fiscal year 2006 and increasing each year by increments of $5 million, reaching $100 million in fiscal year 2010. In an effort to further the positive mission of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, to begin, let me associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from California. He is dead right in saying that an investment in groups like these will pay off in saving a big bundle of money, of the costs of dealing with kids who get in trouble. These types of prevention programs and effectively giving an outlet for young people to associate with one another during afterschool and weekend activities is something that should be encouraged because it is cost- effective. But I would like to add one other point in response to the comments of my good friend from Arizona. If this bill is voted down today, the money will go to the Boys and Girls Clubs anyhow because the appropriators will continue to fund those requests through the State- Justice-Commerce appropriation bill. Voting down this bill is not going to stop the appropriators from appropriating money to the Boys and Girls Clubs. The way that it gets stopped is the defeat of the relevant appropriation bill. But if the authorization for the Boys and Girls Clubs is permitted to expire, then the authorizing committees, the Judiciary Committee in this House and the other body, will lose a valuable tool to do oversight over the Boys and Girls Clubs to make sure that this money is being effectively spent. Unauthorized programs are basically oversight- free programs. The consequence of the gentleman from Arizona, while well-intentioned, succeeding in bringing this bill down is going to mean less congressional oversight over how this money is being spent. That is a step backwards, and that is why this bill ought to pass. Mr. Speaker, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

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. 2363 currently under consideration.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2363) to revise and extend the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4319) to complete the codification of title 46, United States Code, ``Shipping'', as positive law, 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. 4319, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Title 46 Codification Act of 2004, completes the codification of title 46, United States Code, relating to shipping as positive law. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member, and I jointly introduced this legislation on May 10, 2004. The bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel as a part of the program required by 2 U.S.C., section 285(b), to prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary, one title at a time, a complete complication, restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States. This bill makes no substantive change in existing law. Rather, the bill removes ambiguities, contradictions, and other imperfections from existing law and it repeals obsolete, superfluous, and superseded provisions. After introduction, the bill was circulated for comment to interested parties, including committees of the Congress and agencies of the government. All comments were to be submitted no later than 45 days after the bill was introduced. The Federal Maritime Commission and the Department of Transportation provided extensive comments on the bill. Several other agencies and departments of the government also provided comments. The Office of the Law Revision Counsel reviewed and considered all comments, contacting the interested parties to resolve outstanding questions. Some comments proposing changes to improve the organization and clarity were incorporated in the restatement. Other comments, either suggesting substantive changes to existing law or expressing opposition to the substance of existing law, could not be incorporated in the restatement. This bill makes no substantive change in existing law and is not intended to do so. That is not the function of Law Revision Counsel bills. They reorganize and clean up the law and do not change the substance. 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. At committee I offered a substitute amendment prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel which incorporated additional changes to the Code which were recommended as a result of the review and comment process. That is the text that is before us today. The Law Revision Counsel has indicated that he is satisfied that the substitute text makes no substantive change to existing law and that no additional cost to the government would be incurred as a result of the enactment of H.R. 4319. I would like to express the committee's appreciation for the work of the Law Revision Counsel and his staff on this bill. I urge all Members to support this legislation. 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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4077) to enhance criminal enforcement of the copyright laws, to educate the public about the application of copyright law to the Internet, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the Chair of the subcommittee and the principal author of the bill.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation addresses the growing piracy problem facing our Nation's creative community. New technologies have made copyright piracy an even easier activity to undertake than before. The number of pirating files continues to increase. Although the technology is not the problem, our Nation's laws need to be updated to reflect the impact of this new technology. In response to the increase in piracy, the copyright community has been investing time and money in campaigns to educate America about the need to respect copyrights. The Attorney General and other senior administration officials have spoken publicly about the piracy problem and their efforts to fight it in our court system. Schools and universities have begun requiring incoming freshmen to attend copyright education programs before granting them access to the university computer networks. Yet there seems to be a belief among America's youth, and even some of their parents, that copyright piracy is either an acceptable activity or one that carries low risk of penalties. This needs to change. Under existing legal authority, the Department of Justice has identified problems that prevent it from pursuing high-volume file sharers. Section 10 of this legislation provides new legal authority to pursue those making available 1,000 or more files. The content community sees government-run public service campaigns as an important counterpart to their education effort. Section 5 provides for such a government-run campaign. Parents want to be able to learn of illegal activity by their children before they are sued by a copyright owner or the Department of Justice. Section 3 of this legislation creates a voluntary warning system that will allow parents to receive a warning like the kind that still occurs in small towns today. When a child is doing something wrong, the local cop on the beat tells his or her parents about it. Once alerted to their child's behavior by a friendly warning from the local cop, the parents can put a stop to behavior then and there. I believe that a DOJ warning letter sent to the parents will have the same impact on them and their child's behavior as the policeman's friendly warning. Finally, H.R. 4077 contains the Family Movie Act that clarifies that existing copyright and trademark law cannot be used to prevent a parent from deciding what their children see in the privacy of their own home. I do not take kindly to those who would presume to tell parents how they decide what is best for their children. In addition, because of the limited floor time at this time of year, the bill also includes the text of H.R. 1775. This bill designates the oak tree as the national tree. 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. 4077, the bill currently under consideration.