F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation addresses a growing problem facing our Nation's creative community. Efforts to ensure that consumers are able to know whether they are buying legitimate software, music, movies, or other forms of intellectual property are being subverted by those who counterfeit authentication labels and steal legitimate ones. These counterfeited and illicit labels are then attached to counterfeit products defrauding consumers into thinking they have purchased a legitimate copy of the product when they have not. The committee has been made aware of numerous efforts by organized groups to counterfeit authentication labels and to traffic in illicit ones. The activity is highly profitable and less likely to lead to arrest than for dealing in drugs; and until this legislation is signed into law, subject to a loophole in the existing law that allows those who traffic in such labels to face no criminal penalties. The middleman who traffics in illicit and counterfeit labels can walk away from his crime with no penalties. The bill would close this loophole and ensure that everyone who undertakes a scheme to defraud consumers faces criminal penalties. Because of the short time remaining in this session, H.R. 3632 also incorporates the text of three other noncontroversial bills, H.R. 3754, H.R. 112, and H.R. 4646, in the manager's amendment. H.R. 3754 provides for additional penalties for those who use false domain name contact information to commit crimes. As Internet-based crimes continue to increase in number, updated laws are needed to stop this growth. H.R. 112 and H.R. 4646 provide for a new place of holding Federal district court in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and Plattsburgh, New York, respectively. H.R. 112 is cosponsored by both Republican and Democratic members of the Colorado delegation. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts have stated they support enactment of the bill. H.R. 4646 is similarly supported by the U.S. Judicial Conference and the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York. 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 Texas (Mr. Smith).

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. 3632, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3632) to prevent and punish counterfeiting of copyrighted copies and phonorecords, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1301) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit video voyeurism in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the House author of the bill, with the sincere hope that he does not use it all.

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, S. 1301 imposes civil and criminal penalties for intentionally capturing an image of a private area of an individual without the individual's consent and in a circumstance where the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. With the development of smaller cameras and the instantaneous distribution capability of the Internet, the issue of video voyeurism is a huge privacy concern. Unsuspecting adults, as well as high school students and children, have been targeted in school locker rooms, department store dressing rooms, and even in their homes. One egregious example occurred in Monroe, Louisiana, where a neighbor installed cameras in Susan Wilson's attic. Using those cameras, the neighbor had been watching the Wilsons for months, but because Louisiana had no laws at the time to prosecute the invasion of privacy, the Wilsons have no options for redress. Many States have since passed laws that target video voyeurism to protect those in private areas, but there are fewer protections for those who may be photographed in compromising positions in public places. S. 1301 makes the acts of video voyeurism illegal on Federal land such as national parks and Federal buildings, using the well- accepted legal concept that individuals are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. It also serves as model legislation for States that have not yet enacted their own laws or need to update existing laws to account for the rapid spread of camera technology. This crime would be punishable by a fine of not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for up to 1 year or both. The penalties found in this bill reflect the serious injury that is caused by the invasive nature of these crimes. The Senate passed S. 1301 by unanimous consent on July 24, 2003, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) introduced a bill that was substantially the same in the House. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) added a definition to the term ``broadcast'' to cover those who would not only video, but directly broadcast these pictures on the Internet. These changes improved the bill, and it is my understanding that the original sponsors in the House and the other body support them. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 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 S. 1301.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Representative John Conyers and myself, I wish to extend our thanks and gratitude to Ann Jemison, who is retiring this week after almost 30 years of service to the House of Representatives. We also wish to extend our very best wishes to Ann, on her upcoming wedding on September 25, 2004. Ann hails from the Land of Lincoln and began her career on the Hill as an Assistant Manager and then Manager in the House Restaurant System from 1975 through 1994. She moved into the position of Staff Assistant/ Receptionist, first, for the Committee on Public Works and Transportation in 1994, and then with the Committee on the Judiciary Committee in 1995. Ann is the first smiling face you see when you enter the Committee's front door and the friendly and knowledgeable voice you hear when you call our office. Mr. Speaker, Ann has served the House Judiciary Committee, the Congress and the American people over all these years with commitment, dedication and integrity. We thank her and want her to know that she will be missed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1787, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004. I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for bringing attention to an important issue. This straightforward, narrowly tailored legislation deserves our support, as do the volunteer firefighters who stand to benefit from its passage. The purpose of the bill is simple and clear: To encourage increased donation of surplus firefighting equipment to volunteer firefighting units by removing civil liability barriers that currently cause some corporation, individuals, and professional firefighting entities that destroy or mothball surplus or used equipment rather than to donate it. The Committee on the Judiciary had a hearing on H.R. 1787 on July 20, 2004, at which Chief Philip Stittleburg of the National Volunteer Fire Council testified in favor of the bill. According to the testimony received by the committee, volunteer fire departments account for 75 percent of all the Nation's firefighters and represent a cost savings estimated to be as much as $37 billion annually, which taxpayers would otherwise have to spend if those services that volunteers provide had to be replaced with full-time paid professional firefighters. Many of these volunteer departments are in rural areas, with fewer resources, and face a constant struggle to provide their members with adequate equipment to protect local communities. Volunteer fire departments have traditionally benefited from the donation of surplus or used equipment when professional fire departments or firefighting units of private enterprises upgrade or replace their own equipment. Surplus equipment may include hoses, oxygen masks, protective clothing or even fire trucks. However, today, some of this needed, usable, and safe equipment is being destroyed or put in storage by the better- equipped fire units instead of being donated to the volunteer departments. Many times donations never occur because of the fear of legal liability exposure if such equipment were ever to fail, even through no fault of the donor. The legislation before us would remove both the fear and reality of such liability for potential donors of fire safety or fire rescue equipment to volunteer departments. The bill before us is a good, common-sense idea, but not an entirely original one. Ten States have already passed versions of this legislation at the State level. Texas, most notably, passed a law 7 years ago granting liability relief to donors of firefighting equipment that have resulted in approximately $13 million worth of donations to over a thousand volunteer departments since 1997. However, volunteer firefighter advocates do not have the resources to wage legislative campaigns in the remaining 40 States. At a time when the Federal Government is more involved than ever in funding local first responders, Congress has the responsibility to do whatever it can to help volunteer firefighters get better equipment at zero taxpayer cost. What the bill does is simply provide that a person or entity who donates fire control or rescue equipment to a volunteer department will not be liable for civil damages for damage or loss proximately caused by the equipment after donation. Despite some allegations by trial lawyers and other opponents, what the bill does not do is to protect the manufacturer of such equipment. It does not protect any donor whose actual mission constitutes gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Furthermore, the bill does not endanger the safety of firefighters. As Chief Stittleburg testified at the committee's hearing, fire chiefs are responsible for inspecting donated and purchased equipment alike, and no chief would allow their firefighters to answer an alarm using equipment that was not properly inspected and deemed fit for use. Given a choice between no equipment and donated equipment that they inspect before using, volunteer fire departments are clearly in favor of the latter. And given a choice between believing trial lawyers versus volunteer firefighters about the need for use and safety of donated equipment, I will choose the latter. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to provide some limited, commonsense relief to Good Samaritan donors of needed equipment to Members' own local fire departments and to the communities that rely upon volunteer firefighters. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1787. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1787) to remove civil liability barriers that discourage the donation of fire equipment to volunteer fire companies, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1787, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think the choice in this bill is either pass the bill and allow for the donation of the equipment, or do not pass the bill and no equipment is going to be donated at all because the donor does not want to be on the hook for a civil liability lawsuit merely as a result of the donation. This bill does not immunize the manufacturer of the equipment so if the equipment was defectively manufactured, a lawsuit would still lie against that manufacturer for either product liability or negligence. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) also says, well, the way to deal with this is to defeat the bill and have every volunteer fire company sign a waiver when they receive donated equipment. Well, that means that there is going to have to be a lawyer sitting in the firehouse drafting these waiver documents. Most of the volunteer fire companies that I am familiar with in my State, and I do not think they are any different from volunteer fire companies in other States, are staffed entirely by volunteers. These are people who donate their time to deal with emergency situations. Many of the volunteer fire companies in Wisconsin also run the first responder and emergency medical technician teams, and they ought to be spending their time and efforts doing training and raising money to purchase equipment that could not be donated, rather than paying for lawyers' fees to draft up waiver of liability agreements. I think this is a very sound bill. It is a commonsense bill. It should be passed. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the real outsourcing motion is the one which has been made by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). If this motion is adopted and this bill is enacted into law, it will cost American jobs. Anytime the cost of doing business in the United States goes up, the number of Americans with jobs will go down. This motion to recommit would increase the cost of doing business in this country and in the process lose American jobs. I do not want to hear anybody who has argued in favor of this motion ever to come back and complain about the outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries if this motion passes because this is the type of thing that will absolutely do that. The motion to recommit defines the covered entities as those that have substantial business activities in this country, and hurting substantial business in American substantially hurts American workers. Stand up for American workers; vote down this motion to recommit. Stop the outsourcing of jobs by last-minute motions made on the floor with red herring arguments. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. 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. 4571.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this substitute amendment which guts the bill. Where to begin? I will begin with the title of the first section of the substitute. It is entitled ``Three Strikes and You're Out.'' But it is not true when we read the substitute. In fact, the substitute provides that following three violations of this provision, the court ``shall refer each such attorney to one or more appropriate State bar associations for disciplinary proceedings.'' Three strikes and you are still in. The Democratic substitute does not say that the attorney shall be suspended from the practice of law. That is what the base bill says. The bill says that after three strikes ``The Federal District court shall suspend that attorney from the practice of law in that Federal District Court.'' The base bill follows through on its ``three strikes and you're out'' promise. The Democratic substitute says ``three strikes and you have a foul ball.'' But it gets worse. Not only are the filers of frivolous lawsuits not out after three strikes under the Democratic substitute, but the Democratic substitute even changes what a strike is under existing law. Currently Rule 11 contains four criteria that can lead to a Rule 11 violation. The Democratic substitute references only three, kind of like shrinking the strike zone. Currently, Rule 11 allows sanctions against frivolous filers whose denials of factual contentions are not ``warranted on the evidence'' or are not ``reasonably based on the lack of information and belief.'' The Democratic substitute removes this protection from the victims of frivolous lawsuits under existing law. The Democratic substitute for the first time without penalty allows defendants to file papers with the court that include factual denials of allegations against them that are not warranted by the evidence and not reasonably based. In other words, misleading and unfactual filings end up getting a get-out-of- jail-free card under the Democratic substitute. Instead, the substitute provides additional protection for defendants filing frivolous defenses that are not warranted by the evidence and not reasonably based. This is a step backward for victims of frivolous lawsuits under both State and Federal law. Further, the base bill provides that those who file frivolous lawsuits can be made to pay all of the costs and attorneys' fees that are ``incurred as a direct result of filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, that is the subject of the violation.'' The Democratic substitute does not include that critical language, which is necessary to make clear that those filing frivolous lawsuits must be made to pay the full costs imposed on their victim by the frivolous lawsuit. The Democrat substitute also imposes complicated mandates on each State's judicial districts, requiring them to ``develop and implement a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan.'' The Democratic substitute requires States to implement these mandates under exceedingly complex requirements that span all the way from pages 10 to page 15 of the Democratic substitute and requires things like ``systematic, differential treatment of civil cases that tailors the level of individualized and case specific management,'' whatever that means. At a minimum, this is overly burdensome, and may be unconstitutional. The Democratic substitute requires that States ``develop and implement'' these plans when the Supreme Court has held that ``Congress may not simply commandeer the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a Federal regulatory program.'' That is in New York v. The United States 1992. That is exactly what the Democratic substitute does without any justification under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Democratic substitute also completely overrides State laws regarding the sealing of records in all cases, including proceedings in which State laws protect the privacy of sexual abuse victims, including children. And let me repeat this: if the Democratic substitute passes and becomes law, State laws relative to the sealing of court records on sexual abuse cases, including those against minors, can be open to public scrutiny. Shame on you. This blunderbuss provision in the Democratic substitute covers State divorce proceedings, and even all criminal cases, without a showing of why State procedures are inadequate. The Democratic substitute also retains rule 11's current ``free pass'' provision, which allows lawyers to avoid sanctions for making frivolous claims simply by withdrawing those claims within 21 days after a motion for sanctions has been filed. Now, let us look at that. A frivolous claim or frivolous filing has been made. You have 21 days after you make it to withdraw it. But meantime, the opposite party has got to go to the legal expense to make the motion to the court to show that the claim is frivolous. And who ends up paying the bill on that? Not the lawyer who filed the frivolous claim, but the defendant and the defendant's lawyers; and that provision actually encourages frivolous lawsuits by allowing unlimited numbers of frivolous pleadings to be filed without penalty. Talk about a loophole big enough to drive the Queen Mary through, that is it. The Democratic substitute also does not include the bill's essential provisions to prevent the unfair practice of forum shopping. In short, the Democratic substitute does not provide for three strikes and you are out. It provides for three strikes and you get referred to the State Bar Association that can continue to let the offending attorney practice law. The Democratic substitute even weakens existing law that protects plaintiffs from defendants that file frivolous denials that are not warranted by the evidence and are not reasonably based. The substitute also fails to provide that attorneys' fees be awarded to cover the full costs of responding to a frivolous lawsuit, and the substitute also burdens the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a Federal regulatory program. It overrides State procedures governing the confidentiality of documents in the course of legal proceedings. That is more than three strikes against the Democratic substitute, and it should be soundly defeated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Mr. Turner of Texas