F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, what the gentlewoman from Colorado did not tell us is what is not getting media attention, and that is that doctors are closing up their practices. When the Committee on the Judiciary heard testimony on this issue, the wife of a man named Tony Dyess came and spoke. Mr. Dyess was involved in an automobile accident. He had a spinal cord injury, and because there were no neurosurgeons left in southern Mississippi, it took 6 hours to airlift him to a hospital in Louisiana that has some better medical liability laws, and the golden hour for neurosurgery had passed; and as a result Tony Dyess is a quadriplegic simply because malpractice insurance costs chased the neurosurgeons out of southern Mississippi. This is an issue of access to health care, and we cannot have liability insurance costs force doctors to close their practices and not have access to people who need doctors and need them desperately. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 638, I call up the bill (H.R. 4280) to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing bills to complete the codification of titles 41 (Public Contracts) and 46 (Shipping) of the United States Code as positive law. This bill has been prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives as a part of the responsibilities of that office to prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary for enactment into positive law all titles of the United States Code. This bill makes no change in the substance of existing law. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of the bill and a description of the bill, containing a section-by-section summary, should contact the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20505-6711. The telephone number is (202) 226-2411. Persons wishing to comment on the bill should submit those comments to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel no later than 45 days after today's date.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, John R. Miller is retiring on May 3, 2004, after 32 years of service working for the Federal government. He began his career in the Legislative Branch working on the staff of Representative William McCulloch of Ohio. Later, John became an attorney-advisor in the Office of General Counsel at General Accounting Office and worked there for 3 years. In 1975, when the Office of the Law Revision Counsel was established as an independent office in the House of Representatives, John was one of the first assistant counsels appointed. In 1994, John was promoted to Deputy Law Revision Counsel, and in 1996, he was appointed by Speaker Newt Gingrich as the Law Revision Counsel. Throughout his 28 years with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, John has played an integral role in the development and evolution of the Office. During his tenure as Law Revision Counsel, he has initiated and overseen a significant modernization and upgrading of the procedures and technology used to prepare the Code, thereby improving efficiency and accuracy. Mr. Speaker, John has set high standards for the work of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel. His unwavering commitment to excellence has been instrumental in making the Code as accurate and reliable as possible. He will be missed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Rep. John Conyers and myself, I wish to extend our thanks and gratitude to Lynn Alcock, who is retiring this week after over 30 years of service as the calendar clerk on the House Judiciary Committee. Lynn has served admirably chairmen from both political parties, beginning with Chairman Peter Rodino and staying through the chairmanships of Jack Brooks, Henry Hyde, and now my three-plus years. These chairmen, I believe, came to the same conclusion I did: Lynn is a tremendous asset who cannot be replaced. Lynn hails from the Buckeye State of Ohio and began her congressional service in April of 1969 at the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan congressional research arm of the Library of Congress. Three years later, Lynn began working for House Information Resources before coming to her job ``home'' since December of 1973--the House Judiciary Committee. Lynn is one of only a few who have worked for the House Judiciary Committee during both the impeachment of President Nixon and the impeachment of President Clinton. Her efforts making the Committee's work on these events available to the public will be particularly helpful to historians and scholars interested in these important events. Mr. Speaker, Lynn has served the House Judiciary Committee, the Congress, and the American people for over 30 years with dedication, excellence, and integrity. We thank her and know that she will be missed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit for now, but I am prepared to accept this motion to recommit for a number of reasons. First of all, I think the motion to recommit is redundant in that all Federal laws apply to these special elections, not just the laws that are enumerated to the motion to recommit with instructions that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) has offered, but I want to be much more serious in terms of dealing with this. How the House is reconstituted following a disaster should not be an issue of partisan debate. Much of what has gone on here today has been a partisan debate; and in accepting this motion to recommit, I am reaching out to the other side to say let us make the passage of this bill bipartisan because the acceptance of the motion to recommit should make the bill bipartisan. And that, coupled with my commitment to deal with the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) constitutional amendment, certainly should show that we are dealing with this issue in good faith. And whether one supports the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) amendment or not, it is important, I think, to make sure that the replacement representatives that are elected are elected and seated as soon as humanly possible, and that is what this bill attempts to do. So I would hope that after the acceptance of this motion to recommit, we could pass this bill by an overwhelming vote; and I would reach out to my friends on the other side of the aisle and make that offer and hope that they reciprocate. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the preferential motion. Mr. Chairman, we have been debating this matter in the Committee of the Whole and before that when the rule was adopted for almost 5 hours. It has become crystal clear that the entire thrust of this debate is whether a reconstituted House of Representatives following a disaster will be comprised of elected Members or temporary appointments, appointed by somebody, maybe the Governor, maybe the legislature, maybe we ourselves before our demise. The issue of maintaining the people's House I think is the paramount consideration we ought to be giving on this issue. But even if Members agree we should amend the Constitution to have temporary appointments, I think everybody ought to agree we ought to have special elections as quickly as possible so that those who come to replace us will arrive with a mandate from the people of our district. So whether or not Members favor a temporary appointment method, which I do not, or Members favor keeping the House being solely elected, Members ought to vote for this bill because it does allow for the filling of vacancies when 100 or more seats are vacant as quickly as possible. That is the issue we have before us today, and it is an issue which I believe is of paramount importance because, should this Nation be in crisis as a result of a huge number of Members in the House of Representatives being killed in a terrorist attack, the sooner we put the people back in charge with representatives elected by the people I think should be the paramount issue. Now, the final point I would like to make is, yes, my committee will mark up and send out to the floor the Baird constitutional amendment at our next markup, and I hope that the leadership would schedule that as quickly as possible. I for one will vigorously oppose it because I believe the principle of an elected House of Representatives is one that should prevail over everything. The final point I would like Members to consider is if we end up having an appointed House of Representatives even temporarily and an appointed Senate and an appointed President, where do the people rule? They do not rule in any of the three branches that make laws and appropriate the public's money; that is all done by appointed positions. And that is why I believe it is important to maintain the elected nature of this House of Representatives even in the case where a catastrophe occurs. I would urge rejection of the preferential motion and urge passage of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2844, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the chairman.

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. Chairman, this is another amendment to gut the bill. All you need to do is look at the last three lines of the amendment that says ``or otherwise ensure that all eligible candidates are given sufficient time to prepare for and participate in the election.'' A State could decide to postpone the election indefinitely because they decided that all the candidates needed to have 30 face-to-face debates, and that would fall into the catch-all clause. We need to have a specified time frame to reconstitute the House with elected Members, and that is why we have the time frame put down here. I am very interested in listening to the argument of the gentleman from Washington that completely misses the point. His side won a special election in Kentucky. I congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) for his victory. He did not win a primary election. He was not nominated by a Democratic Party convention and his opponent in the election was nominated by a Republican Party convention. The election of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) to the House to promptly fill the vacancy caused by the election of Ernie Fletcher, his predecessor, as Governor of Kentucky is no less democratic than the election of those of us that went through primaries.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment that is designed to slow down having an election to replace Members who have been wiped out as a result of a terrorist attack. It has a number of features that will do that and will open up Pandora's box to allow people to game the system. The first part of the amendment extends by 5 days, from 2 days to 7 days, the time in which legal action can be filed on the narrow issue of whether there are 100 vacancies and whether a vacancy occurs in a particular district. The second section of the gentleman's amendment is not properly drafted. The base bill says that the decision of the district court of 3 judges must be rendered within 3 days and is not reviewable. However, the second section of the amendment says, taking into account the opportunity for an expedited appeal of the initial decision. There is no appeal of the initial decision in the base bill, and the second section makes that section of the revised statute inconsistent in its text. The third section of the amendment proposes to allow anybody or a political party to petition for an appeal. This is how the system can be gamed. My district is an overwhelmingly Republican district. It has never elected a Democrat to the House of Representatives in over 40 years. If I should be annihilated, I am sure that there would be the temptation that would be there for the Democrats in my district to try to stop an election and try to stop a Republican from probably being elected and seated to replace me. Similarly, in the district next door to me, currently represented by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), that is an overwhelmingly Democratic district, and the temptation would be there under this amendment for the Republican Party or Republican citizens to file a lawsuit to slow down the election of the replacement of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) should he be annihilated in a terrorist attack. So the amendment that has been offered allows people to game the system for political ends rather than to rise above partisanship at times of a crisis and to speedily elect a replacement Member when someone has been wiped out in a terrorist attack. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard an awful lot that this is not a bipartisan bill. This is a bipartisan bill, and I would draw the attention of the Members to the reported bill does show that additional cosponsors include the two top Democrats on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, at 9:50 in the morning on September 11, 2001, I was standing in this Chamber waiting to bring up three bills that had come out of the Committee on the Judiciary. At that time the Sergeant at Arms told Speaker Hastert that another plane had been unaccounted for; that it was heading in the direction of Washington, D.C., and the Speaker promptly ordered the evacuation of the Capitol and told me to run for my life. Had that plane not left the gate at the Newark, New Jersey, airport, I would not be standing here today, nor would this building be standing here today. I think that gave me pause to think of what would happen to preserve this unique representative government should there be a disaster that wiped out the entire Congress. And the debate today goes basically to the issue of whether the reconstituted House should preserve the tradition that the House of Representatives has always consisted of Members that were first elected by the people, or whether we should have appointed Representatives, appointed by the Governor, appointed by the legislature, or appointed by ourselves before we passed away. Now, if Armageddon should take place and a disaster should happen, we can have an executive branch that is headed by an appointed Cabinet Secretary under the Presidential succession law. We could have a Senate of 100 Members appointed by the Governor of the respective States. And if we should amend the Constitution to allow the appointment of Members of the House of Representatives, then we would have an appointed House. Is that what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind, an appointed President, an appointed Senate, and an appointed House of Representatives? No way. And the comments of James Madison in the Federalist Papers are right on target. So the issue today is whether we should amend the Constitution to allow for the appointment of interim Representatives or figure out a way to elect replacement Representatives who would come to Washington, D.C., or wherever the Congress would be meeting, with a mandate from the people at the time of the most severe crisis in the history of this country. And this bill attempts to set up a mechanism so that we can have prompt special elections. Now, no election is perfectly run. We have sure found that out 4 years ago in the Presidential election. But I am here to tell you that elections, no matter how imperfect they are, are much better than having an appointed House of Representatives where the loyalty would be nowhere but to whomever made the appointment. Now, I have heard a lot of complaints from my friends on the other side of the aisle that I am stonewalling consideration of a constitutional amendment. That is not true. We had a hearing last year on the constitutional amendment proposed by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). It did not get very much support. But at the first markup of the Committee on the Judiciary that we will have, we will take up his constitutional amendment and send it to the floor. I will vigorously oppose it on the principle that I am opposed to having appointed Members sit in this House of Representatives. But we ought to have a debate on this, and we ought to see who wants to have our replacements be elected or our replacements be appointed should we be wiped out. Then I hear the complaints that 45 days is too quick to be able to organize a fair election. That is not true. In Virginia, when there is a vacancy in the Virginia General Assembly due to a death or a resignation, there have been special elections that have been held within 12 days after that vacancy occurred, and nobody has complained that the successor Representative was unfairly elected. During World War II, the British House of Commons, which, like the House of Representatives, has entirely consisted of people who have been elected by the people since 1215 A.D., they were able to have special elections within 42 days after a vacancy occurred. Notwithstanding the point that the Nazis were bombing Britain every night incessantly, they still were able to stand up and preserve the notion that people should come to the House of Commons with a mandate from the people and not be appointed by anybody else.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. ``The right of suffrage is certainly one of the'' most ``fundamental articles of republican government, and ought not to be regulated by the legislature. A gradual abridgment of this right has been the mode in which aristocracies have been built on the ruins of popular forms.'' That was said by James Madison on August 7, 1787, to the Constitutional Convention; and the very proposal that is offered by opponents of this bill, a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to require that vacant House seats be filled by appointment, even temporarily, was explicitly rejected by the founders as antithetical to republican government. My committee had a hearing in 2002 on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). There was not very much support for it; and I imagine that when this House debates the Baird amendment, it will be voted down. It will go far short of the two-thirds necessary to propose a constitutional amendment because there are enough Members of this House that believe that the principle of having an elected House of Representatives is paramount. I will get my colleague his vote and his debate for him with the cooperation of my friend from California, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who is the cosponsor of my bill; but what I would like to know is those of my colleagues who criticize the Sensenbrenner-Dreier bill, what is their alternative if the constitutional amendment gets voted down? They have not stated what alternative they have, and that is why this bill is important. On September 11, 2001, the fourth hijacked plane was headed for this building. If it had not been for the heroic actions of the passengers of United Flight 93 who forced the plane down over Pennsylvania, Congress' ability to function may have been severely disrupted. While the 17th amendment allows Governors immediately to appoint replacement Senators, currently there are no mechanisms to quickly replace House Members. However, we can act today to enact such a mechanism through the legislative process, just as the founders intended. The Continuity of Representation Act of 2004 will, unlike other proposals, preserve the people's constitutional right to elect directly their representatives. The bill provides for the expedited special election of new Members to fill seats left vacant in extraordinary circumstances, which the bill defines as occurring when the Speaker announces that there are more than 100 vacancies in the representation from the States. Within 10 days after such an announcement, the political parties of the States with House vacancies, as provided by State law, may nominate candidates to run in a special election to be held within 45 days. While some may argue for the adoption of a constitutional amendment allowing the appointment of replacement House Members if a terrorist attack leaves large numbers of vacancies, such an amendment would destroy the uninterrupted tradition that only Members duly and directly elected by their local constituents should serve in the House, while ignoring the current mechanism for preserving continuity in government, the founders, in their wisdom, included in the Constitution and which is the basis for this bill. Madison used the strongest terms when stating the House must be composed of only those elected by the people. Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that direct elections are ``unquestionably the only policy'' by which the House can have ``an intimate sympathy with the people.'' The House, uniquely among all branches and bodies of the entire Federal Government, is rooted in democratic principles, and those principles must be preserved at all costs. Current Federal law allows the Presidency and the Senate to consist entirely of the unelected. Without an elected House, the entire Federal Government would be run without a single branch reflecting the popular will. Think about it. If we have an appointed House and an appointed Senate and an appointed President, our democracy will end up being run by appointed people. That is not what James Madison and the others who were in that convention envisioned ever happening. Congress has the clear constitutional authority to enact H.R. 2844 under article I, section 4, of the Constitution, which states that ``the Congress may at any time by law make or alter'' State election laws. Consistent with the right to chosen representation, the founders explicitly considered Congress' power to require expedited special elections the solution to potential discontinuity in government in extraordinary situations. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, the Constitution gives the Congress ``a right to interpose'' its special election rules on the States ``whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety.'' The Supreme Court has unanimously approved such clear-cut constitutional authority. While some take a pessimistic view of the resiliency of the electoral process following an attack on the Nation's Capitol, I have a different view. In England during the Second World War, many members of the House of Commons were killed in battle. Our friends across the Atlantic never devolved to appointed rule, and special elections were held within 42 days after the date of death to fill the vast majority of seats left vacant, even when the Nazis were bombing England during the Blitz. I have no doubt that here today in the United States the boundless spirit of the American people will ensure that democracy prevails in the most pressing conditions. Just as the recovery of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center sites were accomplished far quicker than imagined, I have the greatest confidence in the people of this great country that State and local election authorities would expeditiously work to restore the people's House in time of emergency. R. Doug Lewis, executive director of the Elections Center, a nonpartisan organization representing the Nation's election officials, has testified that elections administrators from combined responses nationwide feel that they can conduct an election in as few as 45 days. While others assert that it would be too burdensome for special elections to be required within 45 days of a catastrophic attack, 10 States, as the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out, already require special elections within 45 days in normal, nonemergency situations. Vacancies in the Virginia General Assembly during the session have been filled in as few as 12 days after the vacancy has occurred, and no one has complained that those elections were unfair or unrepresentative. One does not have to look far for examples of the resiliency of the voting process and our State and local election officials' dedication to the cause of democracy. Take, for example, last year's gubernatorial recall election in California that involved 135 candidates and an election that was certified 54 days after the certificate was issued. Voters were also asked to consider two constitutional amendment propositions. The election proceeded smoothly amidst unprecedentedly high voter turnout and 10,000 fewer polling places in the State of California than normal. While some imagine horrific scenarios regarding catastrophic attacks on the Capitol, more inspiring scenarios can be imagined that resonate more closely with the American spirit. Should such a terrible situation occur, millions of people around the country might fill schools and gymnasiums, churches and meeting halls and freely exercise, in the wake of a vigorous attack by haters of freedom and democracy, their right to directly chosen representation, a right that has served uninterrupted in the history of our country. Indeed, while some argue that adopting an amendment to the Constitution authorizing appointed Members is necessary in the light of a potential terrorist attack, the very adoption of such an amendment itself would accomplish what no terrorist could ever do, namely striking a fatal blow to what otherwise has been called the people's House. H.R. 2844, on the other hand, is founded on clear, existing constitutional authority that preserves the vital, time-tested constitutional value of directly elected representation that has made this country the most successful experiment in representative government the world has ever known. The issue here in this debate has been if there is a catastrophe whether this House should stay elected or whether we should amend the Constitution to allow successors to be appointed in some manner or another. It is vitally important that in a time of crisis, whomever enters the doors to the Chambers where the House of Representatives meet enters the door with a mandate from the people, because if an appointed representative enters this door, the mandate would come from whomever appointed them. Pass the bill. Do the right thing.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) cuts directly against every argument he has made up to now. What the gentleman's amendment does is delay for another 30 days the right of the people to elect their own replacement Representatives. We either can reconstitute the House quickly or reconstitute the House slowly, and this amendment makes it happen slower. The gentleman also brings up the issue that in Wisconsin we need 62 days. We have primary elections and special elections in Wisconsin. This bill says there should be no primary elections, and that cuts it down to 34 days. So Wisconsin runs a primary election 34 days after the vacancy occurs. We would have no problem replacing me or any of my colleagues from Wisconsin within the 45-day period of time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose this bill. I do so for two reasons. I believe that the bill spends too much money, and it contains too much pork. Many highway projects are good uses of the public's money, but many are not. I think this bill has too many of the latter. We are never going to balance the budget if we do not rein in wasteful spending, and today is a good place to start. Second, I do not believe that the jurisdictional concerns of the Committee on the Judiciary have been fully addressed. Numerous provisions of the bill fall within our jurisdiction. We requested a sequential referral of the bill, which we received, but it did not provide sufficient time for a markup. I appreciate the many conflicting pressures that leadership faces, and I do not criticize them for that decision. We have also worked with the Transportation Committee to try to resolve our concerns, but we have not yet been successful in fully doing so. For example, only yesterday I have learned of a provision tucked away in the bill that I understand would extinguish a particular pending federal False Claims Act lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice. I am very concerned about the ramifications of this kind of legislation. I will certainly be seeking conferees as to that provision and seeking its removal from the bill. Among my other concerns is that the bill as currently drafted would give the Secretary of Transportation some independent litigating authority with respect to certain hazardous materials actions. It is the longstanding position of the both the Department of Justice and the Committee on the Judiciary that litigation authority for the federal government should remain unified in the Department of Justice. We cannot yield on that point. Chairman Young has partially resolved that problem in the manager's amendment, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to fully resolve that issue. I also appreciate his willingness to include language I requested to clarify that Congress has the right to alter, amend, or repeal certain interstate compacts that are authorized in the bill. I remain concerned about a new grant program included in the bill that deals with racial profiling. I am hopeful that we will be able to work together in conference to improve that provision. There is also new material in the manager's amendment that falls within our jurisdiction which we have not yet had time to thoroughly study, so we will be looking at those sections. Finally, I will request that Members of the Judiciary Committee be appointed as conferees on all sections of the bill that fall within our jurisdiction, and I will continue to work cooperatively as we go forward to work out these concerns. But, for the reasons I have stated, I must reluctantly oppose the bill at this point.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The answer to the gentleman's question is yes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam speaker, I, too, would like to thank the staff that worked very hard to negotiate this bill to get the overwhelming bipartisan support that it receives. Let me say that this is a work in progress, as was the DOJ reauthorization bill that the Congress passed and the President signed last Congress, which was the first Department of Justice reauthorization that had been done since 1979. The gentleman from New York has a legitimate concern about the sale of fake law enforcement badges. Let me say that we had hoped to include some language relative to that issue in this bill, but the devil was in the details and we could not agree upon the details before the bill came to the floor. That does not put the issue to bed forever. When we deal with this issue in conference, I am hopeful that we will be able to get some language inserted into the final bill that goes down to the White House that deals with fake badges, because this is a very legitimate issue and there ought to be additional penalties for those who use fake badges over and above the penalties for impersonating a police officer. So I am hopeful that the other body will deal with this issue promptly. It does make some very beneficial improvements to how the Department of Justice deals with its grant programs, particularly with relationship to law enforcement. It does reauthorize the bulletproof vest program. And the material that has been inserted in the bill that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) talked about, about an extraterritorial application when crimes are committed against a United States citizen and the law enforcement of the host country will not deal with that issue, I think are vitally important. So this bill is a tremendous step in the right direction. It is a good bill. It will be made better as we continue working on it, and I am hopeful that before this Congress adjourns that it will be signed into law. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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