F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer). (Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York has just referenced the Daschle provision in Public Law 107-206 and said it was not, ``court- stripping.'' I just want to quote what the provision of law says: ``Any action authorized by this section shall not be subject to judicial review by any court of the United States.'' That quote from the law speaks for itself. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin). (Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I can understand the fervor of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), distinguished minority leader, in opposition to this legislation. She did not support the Defense of Marriage Act when it was passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton. But to insinuate that this bill is an attack on the foundations of our government is just plain wrong. The framers of the Constitution put in Article III, Section 2 relating to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, inferior Federal courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to provide a check by the legislative branch of government on the judicial branch of government, and we have heard quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln expressing their fears about judicial power being unchecked. This bill is a check on judicial power, and the question is whether we should have the elected representatives of the people, in this case the Congress today and the State legislatures in the future, determining Federal marriage policy, or whether we should have a Federal judge stating that for a State to take a different position than a divided court in Massachusetts is an unconstitutional deprivation of rights. Now, in the last 10 years or so Congress has restricted the jurisdiction of the Federal courts on numerous occasions. Much has been mentioned here about the provision that the minority leader in the Senate, Senator Daschle, put into Public Law 107-206. The press comments about that action, which is public law today, included headlines that said: ``Daschle seeks to exempt his State; wants logging to prevent fires,'' and ``Plan to curb forest fires wins support.'' Senator Daschle told the Congress and the country there was an emergency in his State, that action needed to be taken, and we could not have judicial review. The Congress agreed. And we did not hear the hue and cry about the Constitution being undermined because of a congressional determination that there had to be some logging to prevent forest fires in South Dakota, and I think the Congress was right in agreeing with Senator Daschle in this instance. Now, there are a number of other instances in the past 10 years where Congress has precluded Federal judicial review in cases. In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was passed. That was Public Law 104-208. It precluded all judicial review over specified discretionary decisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. There you are involving the allegations of rights by people who are subject to deportation or other actions by the INS. Congress, when it passed that bill, and it was signed by President Clinton, said no judicial review. Did we hear at the time that that undermined the Constitution? No, we did not. It was a correct decision by the Congress to preclude judicial review on this. After September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, Public Law 107-297, precluding judicial review of certifications by the Secretary of the Treasury that a terrorist event had occurred. Did anybody allege that that undermined the Constitution at the time? No way. The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, also passed in the last Congress as Public Law 107-118, precludes judicial review of hazardous waste cleanup programs. So this has been going on all the time. The Judiciary Act of 1789, one of the first bills passed by the first Congress, recognized that the judicial power of the United States was not unlimited and limited that judicial power. There have been expansions and contractions in the area of diversity jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Nobody has alleged that the Constitution is being undermined; and, in fact, Federal judges have come to the Congress and asked that the jurisdictional amount in diversity cases be raised so they did not have as many cases to decide. We have heard the Supreme Court say in asbestos that there should be some way to prevent 600,000 cases from choking the Federal court dockets. I would hope that we would be able to pass some kind of asbestos litigation reform. The fact of the matter remains that we could go on and on and on. It does not violate the Constitution. There are over 200 years of precedents in adjusting the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. What this bill says is that if a State decides it does not want to recognize a same-sex marriage license granted in another State, there will not be Federal judicial review to do so. This is a States rights bill, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that marriage and family law is primarily a matter of the States, and this ensures that it will be. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 15, the ``Project BioShield Act of 2004.'' This important legislation will help us to be better prepared against bioterrorism and other forms of terrorism. I just want to briefly note the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on the Judiciary in the Federal Tort Claims Act provision contained in the new Sec. 319F-1(d)(2) which is contained in 2(a) of the bill. I support the inclusion of this provision. However, I want to note that by allowing this provision to be included in the bill, the Committee on the Judiciary does not waive its jurisdiction over the provision. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished career of Representative Doug Bereuter. The people of Nebraska's First District wisely voted Mr. Bereuter into the House of Representatives in November of 1978, the same year I was first elected to this chamber. As a member of the same freshman class I got to know Representative Bereuter during those weeks preceding our first terms. Over that period, and in the years since, I have found Congressman Bereuter to be a consummate professional and a remarkable representative for the people of Nebraska. He is the quintessential public servant, having served as an officer in the United States Army, as well as various capacities within Nebraska's State government, including service as a State Senator, prior to his election to Congress. Mr. Bereuter has announced his retirement effective at the end of the 108th Congress. During his distinguished career, Mr. Bereuter has left his mark in the halls of Congress. I know that Congressman Bereuter will be missed in this body for the integrity with which he dealt with each person he came across during his tenure. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in congratulating Congressman Bereuter on a job well done. The people of Nebraska have been well served for the past twenty-six years. He has served with distinction, and will retire with the respect of his peers. Congratulations and best wishes for a long and prosperous retirement, Congressman Bereuter.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit should be defeated as the amendment was defeated, and the reason is that section 215, which this amendment proposes to defund, provides more rights to public libraries and booksellers than a grand jury subpoena would. Let us look at what section 215 does. First, it requires the FBI to get a court order. To get a court order, a judge has to be convinced that the court order is necessary, and the burden of proof is on the Justice Department. The section has a narrow scope. It can only be used to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. That is what this motion to recommit proposes to do away with. So the people who are being protected are not United States persons, and people who are engaged in international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Section 215 cannot be used to investigate ordinary crimes or even domestic terrorists. The section preserves first amendment rights, and it expressly provides that the FBI cannot conduct investigations of United States persons solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Now, if section 215 goes down, then the Justice Department can get a grand jury subpoena. Now, with a grand jury subpoena, there is no court order, there is no court review, and the person who receives the grand jury subpoena, a librarian or a bookseller, if you will, has to spend thousands of dollars hiring a lawyer at their expense to make a motion to quash the subpoena in the United States district court. And the burden of proof is on the bookseller or the librarian who wants to have the subpoena quashed. I would submit to my colleagues that if we look at what this amendment proposes to get rid of, it gets rid of a procedure that grants more protection to booksellers and is of much narrower scope than the alternative of the grand jury subpoena. Let us use common sense and not emotion and vote this motion to recommit down.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 4668) to designate the third floor of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum as the ``Bob Hope Memorial Library'' be rereferred to the Committee on Resources.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person's personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic or other gain including immigration benefits. The Federal Trade Commission received 161,819 complaints of someone using another's information in 2002. In 2003 the FTC performed a random sampling of households. The results from the survey suggest that almost 10 million Americans were the victim of some form of ID theft within the last year, which means that despite all of the attention to this type of crime since September 11, 2001, the incidence of this crime is increasing. As border security and international cooperation increases to combat terrorism, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations increasingly turn to stolen identities to hide themselves from law enforcement. For example, according to testimony from the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration, five Social Security numbers associated with some of the September 11 terrorists appeared to be counterfeit. One was assigned to a child and four of the terrorists were associated with multiple Social Security numbers. Since September 11, 2001, Federal and State officials have taken notice of this crime because of the potential threat to security. But the cost to the consumer and corporations is equally alarming. The FTC estimates that loss to business and financial institutions from identity theft to be $47.6 billion per year. The costs to individual consumers is estimated to be approximately $5 billion a year. As this crime increases, we must find new ways to combat it. Web sites developed by the FTC and consumer groups encourage consumers to protect themselves by shredding mail and keeping a close watch over their credit report. Yet the FTC statistics suggest that identity thieves are obtaining an individual's personal information for misuse not only through ``dumpster diving'' but also through accessing information that was originally collected for an authorized purpose, a so-called ``insider threat.'' In one such case, U.S. attorneys charged a 33-year-old customer service representative from Long Island, New York with identity theft and fraud. This individual was using his position at a company that provided computer services to banks and lending companies to access personal consumer credit information from three credit reporting agencies. The scheme allowed him to access personal information of over 30,000 victims. The insider threat from identity theft and identity fraud is a threat to personal security as well as national security. The U.S. Attorney in Atlanta charged 28 people as a part of a fraud ring to supply over 1,900 individuals with fraudulent Social Security cards. The cards were supplied by a Social Security Administration clerk in exchange for $70,000 in payoffs. Under current law, many identity thieves are receiving short terms of imprisonment or probation; however, many of these thieves will use false identities to commit much more serious crimes. Thus H.R. 1731 provides enhanced penalties for persons who steal identities to commit terrorist acts, immigration violations, firearms offenses, and other serious crimes. The bill would amend current law to impose a higher maximum penalty for identity theft used to facilitate acts of terrorism. This legislation will allow prosecutors to identify identity thieves who steal an identity, sometimes hundreds or even thousands of identities, for purposes of committing one or more crimes. Importantly, it will facilitate the prosecution of terrorists who steal identities with the intent of subsequently committing terrorists acts. It also directs the Sentencing Commission to apply the guidelines for abuse of trust to an insider who uses his position to steal identities. I support this common sense legislation and urge my colleagues to join me in its passage. 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. 1731, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1731) to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish penalties for aggravated identity theft, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the only opposition to this bill appears to come from those who are opposed in principle to mandatory minimum sentences. I think that opponents of mandatory minimums would have a much more compelling case if they could assure Congress that the judges are faithfully following the sentencing guidelines that were passed 20 years ago at the time when Congress abolished parole and passed the law establishing determinant sentencing. Sadly, I am afraid the evidence does not support that. The most disturbing recent example of judges deciding to ignore the sentencing guideline's recommendations comes from Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy's testimony before a House appropriations subcommittee in which he stated that judges who depart downward are courageous, and the judges should not have to blindly follow unjust guidelines. Now, Congress creates crimes, Congress prescribes the penalties for crimes, and the reason that there were sentencing guidelines passed to begin with was to prevent both prosecutors and defense counsel from shopping around for judges to try cases that met with their own particular views on what the sentence should be, should the defendant be convicted. Well, because of statements like Justice Kennedy's, we now have to have mandatory minimums when we feel the crime is important enough that somebody should at least spend a day in jail or more. That is why there are mandatory minimums in the bill that is before us that deals with identity theft and identity fraud. I would urge the House to reject the argument that mandatory minimums are bad per se. We need a mandatory minimum in this burgeoning crime. I urge support of this bill. 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. 218) to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote against it. I would ask my colleagues to ignore the list of organizations that have supported the bill and read what the bill does. In Federalist Paper number 45, James Madison, in explaining the division of power between the States and the Federal Government envisioned, stated, ``The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.'' This legislation takes away the ability of the 50 States to govern their internal order. Just look at the title of the bill: ``To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.'' In exercising its authority to keep internal order, the State has traditionally controlled who, within its borders, may carry concealed weapons and when law enforcement officers may carry firearms. This legislation undermines the power of the individual states and frustrates the principles of Federalism. As long as they do not infringe on the rights granted under the second amendment to the Constitution, laws regulating the carrying of concealed firearms should remain within the jurisdiction of the State government where they can be more effectively monitored and enforced. Currently Federal law is silent on the issue of allowing State and local law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons across State lines, allowing each individual State to decide whether or not it wishes and to what extent to allow this practice. Additionally, current Federal law does not mandate that the States allow both active and retired State and local law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon without the permission of each specific State. I understand that at least six States and the District of Columbia currently forbid officers from other States to carry concealed weapons. Thirty-one States restrict carrying a concealed weapon to an officer off duty. And nine States allow an out-of-state officer to carry a concealed weapon. H.R. 218 would override State right to carry laws and mandate that active and retired police officers could carry a concealed weapon anywhere within the United States. Such a measure is an affront to State sovereignty and the Constitution. I have received letters from the National League of Cities and State leaders around the country objecting to this legislation because it replaces the judgment of State and local governments with the judgment of Congress on an important safety issue. The International Association of Police Chiefs, the Major City Chiefs, and the Police Executive Research Forum also object to this legislation. So law enforcement is not unanimous in support of it. The IACP testified at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security that H.R. 218 will create a dangerous situation for law enforcement and citizens alike because there is so much variation in training standards for law enforcement. In addition to these variations, it may be difficult for officers to recognize official badges held by legitimate officers and fake badges and fake ID cards, which are easily obtainable on the Internet. I am also very concerned who will bear the responsibility and liability for potential actions that these officers might take while out of their State. It is a real possibility that the law enforcement agency that trained these officers could wind up being forced to defend itself against actions taken by an off duty, out-of-state officer. I received a letter from Joseph Polisar, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. And I will insert it in the Record in total, but I would like to just read one paragraph. ``Finally, the IACP is concerned about or concerned over the liability of law enforcement agencies for the actions of off-duty officers who use or misuse their weapon while out of State. If an off- duty officer who uses or misuses their weapon while in another State, it is likely that their department will be forced to defend itself against liability charges in another State. The resources that mounting this defense would require could be better spent serving the communities we represent.'' Because of all of the concerns that I have expressed, I must oppose this legislation and ask that my colleagues join me in my opposition. I realize this is a tough vote, but this is not a good bill. I believe that the issues at hand could be better addressed by the States in an appropriate manner through the use of reciprocity agreements, many of which already exist, rather than taking away the right of the States to legislate in this area which H.R. 218 does. An approach of reciprocity agreements would allow individual States to have the final say on whether or not it believes allowing out-of- state officers to carry concealed weapons within its borders would enhance rather than undermine public safety. The letter previously referred to follows: International Association of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, VA, June 23, 2004. Hon. James Sensenbrenner, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I am writing to express our strong opposition to H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. This bill would authorize off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons throughout the country. It is the IACP's belief that states and localities should have the right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms in their communities. It is essential that state and local governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit the needs of their communities. This applies to laws covering private citizens as well as active and former law enforcement personnel. The IACP strongly believes that each state should retain the power to determine whether they want police officers that are trained and supervised by agencies outside of their state carrying firearms in their jurisdictions. Why should a police chief who has employed the most rigorous training program, a strict standard of accountability and stringent policies be forced to permit officers who may not meet those standards to carry a concealed weapon in his or her jurisdiction? However, in addition to these fundamental questions over the preemption of state and local firearms laws, the IACP is also concerned with the impact that this legislation may have on the safety of our officers and our communities. There can be no doubt that police executives are deeply concerned for the safety of our officers. The IACP understands that the proponents of S. 253 contend that police officers need to protect themselves and their families while traveling, and that undercover officers may be targets if recognized on vacation or travel. These are considerations, but they must be balanced against the potential dangers involved. In fact, one of the reasons that this legislation is especially troubling to our nation's law enforcement executives is that it could in fact threaten the safety of police officers by creating tragic situations where officers from other jurisdictions are wounded or killed by the local officers. Police departments throughout the nation train their officers to respond as a team to dangerous situations. This teamwork requires months of training to develop and provides the officers with an understanding of how their coworkers will respond when faced with different situations. Injecting an armed, unknown officer, who has received different training and is operating under different assumptions, can turn an already dangerous situation deadly. In addition, the IACP is concerned that the legislation specifies that only an officer who is not subject to a disciplinary action is eligible. This provision raises several concerns for law enforcement executives. For example, what types of disciplinary actions does this cover? Does this provision apply only to current investigations and actions? How would officers ascertain that an out-of-state law enforcement officer is subject to a disciplinary action and therefore ineligible to carry a firearm? Additionally, while the legislation does contain some requirements to ensure that retirees qualify to have a concealed weapon, they are insufficient and would be difficult to implement. The legislation fails to take into account those officers who have retired under threat of disciplinary action or dismissal for emotional problems that did not rise to the level of ``mental instability.'' Officers who retire or quit just prior to a disciplinary or competency hearing may still be eligible for benefits and appear to have left the agency in good standing. Even a police officer who retires with exceptional skills today may be stricken with an illness or other problem that makes him or her unfit to carry a concealed weapon, but they will not be overseen by a police management structure that identifies such problems in current officers. Finally, the IACP is also concerned over the liability of law enforcement agencies for the actions of off-duty officer who uses or misuses their weapon while out of state. If an off-duty officer who uses or misuses their weapon while in another state, it is likely that their department will be forced to defend itself against liability charges in another state. The resources that mounting this defense would require could be better spent serving the communities we represent. The IACP understands that at first glance this legislation may appear to be a simple solution to a complex problem. However, a careful review of these provisions reveals that it has the potential to significantly and negatively impact the safety of our communities and our officers. Again, the IACP is strongly opposed to this legislation and we urge you to oppose it as well. Thank you for attention to this important issue to law enforcement executives. Sincerely, Joseph Polisar, President.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and ask for a no vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in listening to my friends from the other side of the aisle talk in support of this very important and meritorious resolution, they seem to have forgotten that the advances of civil rights that were passed in Congress in the 1960s were only made possible due to the fact that civil rights was a bipartisan project. Republicans and Democrats joined together to pass not only the civil rights bill of 1964 but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. When we talk about civil rights in the 21st century, it seems to me that we ought to hearken back on repeating what worked in the 20th century. I did not hear very much praise for the Republican efforts to get the civil rights acts passed. I would remind my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle that we are just as much for civil rights as you are; and when we work on this on a bipartisan basis, we can accomplish a lot more while each side maybe strikes a few fewer political points. I urge the adoption of this resolution.