F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I am the only speaker left, and I believe that I have the right to close. So if the gentleman from California could use the remainder of his time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, this is an amendment that attempts to reverse the entire thrust of this legislation. In effect, it gives the proxy to the EPA to make determinations that will have vast impact on our economy without going through the usual legislative process. This is our job to make a determination on whether the Clean Air Act is the proper vehicle to deal with issues related to greenhouse gases. This is not a debate on the underlying science of climate change, and I think that has to be made clear. But if we do want to talk about the EPA's ability to mitigate climate change, let's focus on their own projections. EPA's analysis of the current rule states that it will only result in 1/100 of a degree of lowering of the Earth's average temperature by the year 2100. Administrator Jackson herself stated before the Energy and Commerce Committee that EPA regulation will not ultimately be able to change the amount of CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere if other nations do not agree also to limit emissions. And they aren't, and they won't. So, regardless of whether or not Congress issues a scientific finding based upon a 10-minute amendment debate, we are faced with the indisputable fact that EPA greenhouse gas regulations will lead to billions upon billions of dollars leaving our economy with absolutely zero environmental benefit. This amendment flunks the cost-benefit analysis. It ought to be rejected. We are here today about protecting the economy, job creation, and stopping energy prices from skyrocketing. That's what will happen if this amendment is adopted. It should be rejected in the name of jobs and a healthy economy. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act, as I believe it serves as a critical step in the ongoing process of preventing last year's health care law from destroying American jobs. We cannot ignore the cries from businesses around the country that the 1099 reporting requirement is an unnecessary burden that will cost jobs. In a time when our economy is struggling to emerge from one of the worst recessions in generations, we must work to free small businesses from onerous regulatory burdens. We cannot afford to promote policies that use needless paperwork as a means to strangle growth and prosperity. The 1099 reporting requirement on transactions greater than $600 was included in the health care overhaul without consideration of the individuals, families, and small businesses that would suffer as a result. By devoting more resources to comply with this new requirement, we are preventing businesses from doing what is essential: creating jobs. But the disregard for small businesses did not stop there. Last fall, the 1099 reporting requirement was expanded to include rental property expense payments. Instead of recognizing the disastrous effect of this new requirement, there were those in the last Congress who decided it was a good idea to expand it. Now we are left with even more taxpayers who will suffer the consequences of an already misguided regulation. Today we have the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past. H.R. 4 allows this Congress to stand up for small businesses and hard- working taxpayers by eliminating what is obviously a job destroying regulation. By removing the 1099 reporting requirement, we will free businesses from time-consuming paperwork so that they may grow and help our economy recover. We all hear from our constituents, ``Where are the jobs?'' By supporting this legislation, we can show the American people that we are serious about creating a business environment that promotes job growth and prosperity. I applaud the gentleman from California for recognizing early on the negative impact this regulation will have on small businesses. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to consider this legislation quickly so we can bring certainty to American businesses and avoid the obvious complications that the 1099 reporting requirement presents.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief today. I will just make several points but not extensively because this is the fifth debate we've had on this subject in 10 days and I think everything has been said. First of all, I have pledged in the past and I will pledge again today on this House floor that there will be hearings on a reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, as well as an oversight hearing on the Patriot Act as a whole. The three provisions that are up for reauthorization are important provisions to keep America safe, and I want to dispel some of the misinformation that has again been placed in the Record on the floor of the House today. First of all, section 215, which is the business records provision, has more strict standards for the issuance of a FISA warrant than the issuance of a Grand Jury subpoena in a criminal record. And only business records can be obtained. That means that it is not subject to the Fourth Amendment because it's not a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The reauthorization in 2005, which I authored, provided procedures for recipients of section 215 warrants to seek judicial review of those orders compelling the production of business records. So people can have their day in court to have the warrant quashed. With respect to roving wiretaps, they're nothing new. We have had roving wiretaps for decades over criminal investigations such as racketeering and drug pushing. A roving wiretap order can only be issued by a judge. The law enforcement agency must minimize roving wiretaps, which means that if the target isn't on the phone at the time or they're not talking about something under investigation, then the wiretap has got to be turned off. And that provides for protections, and that has never been challenged for its constitutionality since it was put in the Patriot Act in 2001. Finally, the lone wolf definition is very important because in order to trigger Patriot Act surveillance or applications for Patriot Act surveillance without the lone wolf, there has to be a demonstration that the target is a member of a group like al Qaeda. And the way al Qaeda has kind of sprung out or people who said that they're al Qaeda when they really might not be al Qaeda, lone wolf becomes absolutely vital. It's important to note that the lone wolf authority cannot be used against a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. It could be used against an alien who is present in the United States on a nonpermanent basis, meaning either a visa or as a visa overstay. All of this has gone through constitutional scrutiny. It has passed muster. I will give everybody a chance to speak their peace on the Patriot Act. Believe me, these commitments have been made both myself and by the committee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). We're going to do it. We're going to get it done. But we need to have the extra time that was given to us by the Senate. So the motion that has been made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) is a good motion, an essential motion, and it should be favored.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from San Dimas, and I just want to reiterate the point that my friend from Colorado is so, so wrong. We have heard most of these arguments in the three times this bill has been on the floor in the last 9 days. I want to say again, first of all, the Judiciary Committee under my chairmanship reported out a Patriot Act unanimously in October of 2001, and that ranged from people like Maxine Waters on the left to Bob Barr on the right. We did reform the Patriot Act in 2005 when it came up for renewal last time, and I fulfilled my promise, number one, to oppose a premature elimination of the sunset, and, number two, to have hearings on each of the then 17 expanded provisions of law enforcement that were sunsetted at that time. Fourteen out of the 17, there was no complaint about. Even the American Civil Liberties Union testified on behalf of the fact that there were no abuses whatsoever in those 14. There was concern about the three that are in the underlying bill today, and at the insistence of the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, we put a sunset on it. That expired in 2009, and there have been two extensions that were voted on by the then-Democrat Congress, but they really didn't get at what the complaints of the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Polis, have been. This bill has been used by its opponents as a way of expressing frustration with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies that have nothing to do with the Patriot Act, and it is kind of like a bait and switch or putting up a straw man and then attacking the straw man, because they really can't attack the real man, which is the Patriot Act and what is up for extension. None of these three provisions have been held unconstitutional by a court. There hasn't even been a challenge to the roving wiretaps, and there hasn't been a challenge to the lone wolf provision that is also up for renewal. When there was a challenge to section 215, business records, or for that matter library records, the reforms that I wrote and which we passed in 2005 corrected them to the extent that those who were filing the constitutional challenge against it withdrew their complaint after we fixed what they were complaining about. Now the gentleman from Colorado and the other opponents of the Patriot Act are complaining for the sake of complaining. They are saying that there has been a violation of civil liberties. There hasn't been. No court has found that there has been a violation of civil liberties.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. On none of these provisions that are up for renewal has there really been any meritorious complaint. There has been this great big fear that civil liberties have been violated, but when you get down to the facts, no court has found that civil liberties have been violated. I really would hope that we could debate these issues without all of the smokescreen of the other sins, real or imagined, by law enforcement, and particularly by the FBI, and maybe we could get to a rational debate on what this bill does. But the arguments I have heard from the gentleman from Colorado and other opponents of this rule and this bill simply miss the mark. You are now up to strike four, I would say to the gentleman from Colorado. Let's retire the side.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the Judiciary chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, last week, 122 Democrats rejected legislation to temporarily extend the three expiring Patriot Act provisions, including 36 who supported a 1-year extension last year. The House then adopted a rule to bring the bill back to the floor today, and the vast majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed that, too. These votes are nothing but the minority party playing politics with national security, and their arguments ring hollow. The Democrats' 1-year extension last February successfully achieved their goal of delaying Patriot reauthorization until after the midterm elections. But it left very little time for the new Congress to complete a reauthorization bill before the February 28 sunset. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle now profess concerns with the expiring provisions. If they were so concerned about the law, they could have easily brought a reauthorization bill to the floor last Congress making changes to these provisions, but they did not. They also take issue with the process used to achieve this much- needed extension, criticizing the absence of hearings or a markup. But they gloss over the fact that their 1-year extension was brought straight to the floor with no hearings, no markup, and no opportunity to offer amendments--the same circumstances that a year later they now claim to dislike. Since this law was enacted, these provisions have been scrutinized to the fullest extent of the law and have either been unchallenged or found constitutional. The lone wolf definition has never been challenged. Section 206 roving wiretaps have never been challenged. But Members should know that, in 1992, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-- and that's the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal in the country--upheld criminal roving wiretap authority under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Section 215 business records were challenged, but after Congress made changes to that provision in the 2006 reauthorization, which I sponsored, the lawsuit was withdrawn. These three provisions have stopped countless potential attacks and play a critical role in helping ensure law enforcement officials have the tools they need to keep our country and its people safe. Opponents of these provisions argue that we can simply use criminal laws to gather the information we need. But this argument ignores the most important distinction between criminal investigations and intelligence gathering. Criminal investigations only occur after the fact--after a murder has been committed or a home has been burglarized. The entire purpose of intelligence gathering is prevention--to stop the terrorist attack before it happens. We cannot rely on criminal tools to identify and apprehend those who are plotting to attack us. As the Democrats choose to play politics rather than worry about the safety of our country, we're now under a time crunch. Only 4 legislative days, including today, remain for the House to extend these provisions before they expire and our Nation is placed at a greater security risk. We can't let our guard down. These are needed provisions to keep America safe, and I urge the House to approve this bill today and urge the other body to act quickly to reauthorize these provisions. It's time to put politics aside and do what's right for America's national security. I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to give my friend from California and other Members a little history lesson. When the Patriot Act was drafted in 2001, I insisted on the sunset and the then-Republican-controlled House prevailed on that issue against the then-Democrat-controlled Senate. I resisted repeal of the sunset prematurely, and in 2005, the Judiciary Committee, when I was chairman, had hearings on each of the 17 provisions. There was no controversy about 14 of those provisions. Even the ACLU testified in behalf, that those provisions have not been abused. So 14 of the provisions were made permanent. This law has not trampled on anybody's civil rights. Where there was a constitutional problem with section 215, it was fixed in the reauthorization, and I'm getting a little bit irritated at the scare-mongering that has been going on about this law when no provision has been held unconstitutional by a court.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas, yielded the Democrats 2 additional minutes, and asked for a copy of the motion to recommit so that we could look at it. The gentleman extended that offer in good faith. We received a copy of this motion to recommit at the time the Clerk started reading it, and our offer of good faith was responded to with an attempted surprise. Now, the underlying bill, H.R. 514, is very simple. All it does is extend the authorizations that are about ready to expire until December 8. It doesn't add to the Patriot Act and the Terrorism Prevention Act. It does not subtract from it. It gives the Judiciary Committee the time to do the oversight, which is exactly the same thing that I did when I was the chairman the last time the sunset expired. But there is something else in here that I think is very important, and that is that there is a provision that would cause the courts to second-guess themselves every time a national security action asked them for a business record order. And rather than expediting the request to seek information on terrorists, this motion to recommit tells the court to expedite civil lawsuits against the United States Government to get money damages under a provision that is in the Patriot Act, and that tips it all on its head. If the civil rights are violated, there is a provision in this Patriot Act that allows people to file a lawsuit and to do all of the discovery that needs to be done and to bring the case to trial, and they don't need to be expedited. What needs to be expedited is going after the terrorists with business records. Now, there is a provision in the motion to recommit that says that the Constitution has to be followed. We don't need to put things in the statute book that says the Constitution needs to be followed. That's the supreme law of the land. This is completely redundant. It is unnecessary. And, frankly, the Constitution has been followed in the Patriot Act, because there has been no finding of unconstitutionality of any of the 17 provisions. Where there was a preliminary finding in the business records section, we amended the law and the plaintiffs dropped their suit. We fixed the problem, to the approval of the plaintiffs who filed this suit. So we ought to get on with this. We're going to have these hearings. We are going to have the time to have these hearings. And all of the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle have my commitment now, as they did 9 years ago and as they did 5 and 6 years ago, that the hearings will be thorough, they will be comprehensive, and they will allow everybody to speak their piece. Vote against this motion to recommit and pass the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I plan on doing, with this reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the same thing I did with the 2005 reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Examine every one of the expiring provisions, let everybody speak their piece, and let the House of Representatives work its will. There have been no civil liberties violations on these three expiring provisions. They have all been upheld as constitutional or not challenged. And we did have a problem with business records, and we solved that in 2005. So all of the fears that the gentleman from Colorado is making I think are a red herring. We did it when we were in the majority in the Judiciary Committee; and unfortunately, when the other side was in the majority, they didn't do it. That's why we are here today.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. You are absolutely right. I did it 5\1/2\ years ago, and you have my commitment I will do it again.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the Patriot Act has been the law for over 9 years, and not one of those 17 sections has been declared unconstitutional by any court in the United States. The argument that has been advanced by the gentleman from Ohio is just plain wrong. There has been plenty of opportunity to sue and to get parts of the Patriot Act declared unconstitutional. Most of these provisions haven't been challenged. So let's stick to the facts, rather than making up arguments that simply do not exist with the Patriot Act.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, the argument that has been advanced by my colleague from Colorado just doesn't mesh with the facts, and maybe I can give him a little bit of historical background. First of all, I was the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee on September 11. When the Patriot Act was introduced, we had two hearings and a full committee markup. The Senate didn't have that, even though it was controlled by the Democrats, and there were long negotiations to come up with the original Patriot Act that the President signed. At that time, I insisted that there be a sunset provision on all of the 16 additional provisions of the Patriot Act that expanded law enforcement powers, and I gave the commitment as chairman of the committee I would hold hearings on each of these 16 provisions, subsequently increased to 17, before the sunset expired, and I did. At that time, the testimony was very clear that there was no controversy over making permanent 14 of the 16 provisions, and the Patriot Act extension did that. The three provisions that were not made permanent were the ones that were in controversy, and most of the complaints advanced by my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis) were on the 14 provisions, that there were no abuses that were brought out during the 2005 hearings. Now, let me talk about the three provisions that do expire that are the subject of the underlying bill. First of all, section 206, the roving wiretap authority. Law enforcement has had this authority on organized crime and drug pushing since 1986. The Patriot Act expanded it to include terrorism. There has been no constitutional challenge that has been filed against section 206. Section 6001, which was the 17th provision and the lone wolf provision, says that someone who can be investigated under the Patriot Act doesn't have to be a member of an identifiable group like al Qaeda in order for the Patriot Act's provisions to come into play. Constitutionality of that is unchallenged. Now section 215, which is the business records provision, there was a constitutional challenge and it was withdrawn. The challenge was in the case of Muslim Community Association v. Ashcroft which was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiff in that case alleged that section 215 violated the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The 2005 reauthorization of the Patriot Act amended section 215, and as a result of the amendment, the plaintiffs withdrew their complaint. We had solved those problems. So, much of what we hear today are about issues that were made permanent because there really wasn't an issue, or something that involves other types of law enforcement activity other than the Patriot Act. This Congress, I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, and we will have those hearings before this extension expires on December 8, and we will give everybody a chance to thoroughly air their complaints just like I promised and just like I delivered in 2005. And when the record is brought up to date, I hope that the Members will confine their debate to what is actually in the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act rather than talking about a lot of other things, some of which don't even involve the Patriot Act whatsoever.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) called for not reauthorizing temporarily three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, allegedly because the FBI had found civil liberties violations. In his 1-minute address, the gentleman from Ohio unfortunately missed the point. He used the law on national security letters to show abuses of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act did not authorize national security letters. Those letters were authorized in 1986 under legislation sponsored by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, who opposes the Patriot Act and always has, but it was his national security letter authorization that the abuses were contained in. I would hope as we debate the temporary reauthorization of three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act that we not paint that act with a broad brush, but if there are specific abuses of these three expiring provisions, we should confine the debate to them.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me say I'm a little bit puzzled that my friend from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is opposing the extension of these three provisions of the Patriot Act today because last year, he called up a Senate bill that provided for a year's extension of these three provisions, and managed the time and voted for it. And after hearing his comments, I'm wondering why he has changed his mind. In 19 days, three national security laws will expire unless Congress votes to reauthorize them. H.R. 514 temporarily extends these laws-- FISA business records, roving wiretaps, and the lone wolf definition-- until December 8 of this year. As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in the last decade, I oversaw the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Title II of the act addressed enhanced foreign intelligence and law enforcement surveillance authority. Sixteen sections of that title were originally set to expire on December 31, 2005. Also set to expire on that date was section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which is the lone wolf definition. In 2005, I again spearheaded the effort to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Recognizing the significance of the act to America's counterterrorism operations and the need for thorough oversight, the House Judiciary Committee held 9 subcommittee hearings, 3 days of full committee hearings, then a robust full committee markup reauthorizing legislation. The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 made permanent 14 of the 16 intelligence provisions. The act extended the sunset on section 206 FISA roving wiretaps, section 215 FISA business records, and the lone wolf definition until the end of 2009. But the three remaining temporary provisions were not reauthorized before that deadline. Instead, the then-Democratic majority chose twice to extend the provisions, first for 2 months and then for a year, without ever bringing a reauthorization bill to the floor. This Congress, things will be different. We must approve a temporary extension today to keep these critical national security tools in place. This extension will afford Congress sufficient time to hold hearings and markups, then adopt a permanent reauthorization of these provisions this year, which I intend to introduce soon. The time for multiple temporary extensions is over. The terrorist threat has not subsided and will not expire, and neither should our national security laws. It is equally important that Congress make permanent the lone wolf definition. This provision closes the gap in the FISA act and, if allowed to expire, could permit an individual terrorist to slip through the cracks and carry out his plot undetected. When FISA was originally enacted in 1978, terrorists were believed to be members of an identified group. That's not the case today. Today, more than ever, we are confronted with threats from loosely organized terrorist groups or individuals who may subscribe to a movement or certain beliefs but do not belong to or identify themselves with a specific terrorist group. Without the lone wolf definition, our surveillance tools will be powerless to act against this growing threat to America's security. Section 206 of the Patriot Act authorizes the use of roving or multipoint wiretaps for national security and intelligence investigations. This allows the government to use a single wiretap order to cover any communications device that the target uses or may use. Without roving wiretap authority, investigators would be forced to seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, phone, or computer that needs to be monitored. Section 215 of the act allows the FISA court to issue orders granting the government access to business records in foreign intelligence, international terrorism, and clandestine intelligence cases. The 2005 act expanded the safeguards against potential abuse of section 215 authority and included additional congressional oversight, procedural protections, application requirements, and judicial review. Each of these provisions are integral to defending America's national security and must be kept intact. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 514.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said about national security letters. The authority for them was made permanent in 2006. It is not a part of this bill, so we ought to completely forget about the complaints about national security letters. What I will say is that in the 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot Act there were provisions in it to give recipients of a national security letter the right to obtain judicial review; and I am proud of that fact because I think whatever constitutional infirmities there were in this part of the Patriot Act, they were solved. Now, we hear an awful lot about no oversight. The people on the other side of the aisle who are complaining about this had the authority to have oversight hearings. There was only one of them in the last Congress. Compare that to the nine subcommittee hearings, three full committee hearings, and the full markup that we had in 2006 when this side of the aisle had the majority. The people who have been doing the oversight have been the Republicans, not the Democrats. The people who know this law is making Americans safer are the Republicans, and the Democrats once again are complaining.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, as each of us have traveled back to our districts over the past several months, we've heard from our constituents--from seniors to families to small businesses--speaking out convincingly. They demanded that this new Congress focus on legislation that encourages job growth, cuts spending, and shrinks the size of government. What better way to start than by repealing the President's trillion-dollar health care law, a massive new government intrusion into Americans' health care which promises to skyrocket costs even further. Our immediate action today demonstrates that we are listening. This is not to say that reforms aren't necessary. We must improve our health care system. We must enact sensible reforms that address the core problem--the rising cost of health care--without increasing the size of government. We must enact real medical liability reform, allow Americans to purchase health coverage across State lines, empower small businesses with greater purchasing power, ensure access for those with preexisting conditions, and create new incentives to save for the future health needs. Republicans want health care reform; however, we must reform it the right way. Today, we take a much-needed first step. America deserves legislation that addresses our health care problems and helps our economy prosper. This bill is the first step to do that, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, in 2006, Congress took significant steps to reduce methamphetamine production and distribution by passing the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. Today, the House will consider H.R. 2923, the Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act, which will address problems that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has identified in the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. H.R. 2923 aims to strengthen enforcement measures and ensure that retailers are in full compliance with the law. Prior to passage of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, it was common practice for methamphetamine dealers to go into stores, load up shopping carts with cold medicines, break open the blister packs, and use the pseudoephedrine and ephedrine to make methamphetamine. The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act stopped this practice, by requiring that cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine be placed behind a pharmacy counter, requiring signature and proof of identification before purchase, and limiting how much of these medicines a person can buy in a day or month. However, the law contains a loophole that allows retailers to continue to sell products containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine without showing that their employees are complying with the law's requirement. H.R. 2923 will require retailers of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products to verify with the DEA that they have trained their staff in the requirements of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. If they don't, they simply won't be able to purchase pseudoe phedrine products from distributors. The DEA needs every resource available to enforce the tough drug laws already on the books. This measure will curb drug manufacturers' access to ephedrine or pseudoe phedrine, while keeping these products available to responsible consumers. Over the past decade, methamphetamines have emerged as one of the most dangerous homegrown drugs. Ranking as one of the most widely used illicit drugs in the world, it has become the most prevalent drug problem in many Western and Midwestern states, and is emerging on the East Coast. Congress made great efforts in the fight against methamphetamines with the enactment of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. However, while many of the provisions in the comprehensive legislation have had positive results, including a sharp decline in national methamphetamine lab seizures; manufacturers, traffickers and abusers continue to search for loopholes in the law. H.R. 2923 is a common sense bill, designed to strengthen the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. This bill would create incentives to ensure that the verification process of the law is made both effective and enforceable. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a special day in history. Many people around the world recognize that October 10, 2010 will be remembered as 10/10/10. In the Republic of China (Taiwan), however, 23 million people in Taiwan will be celebrating National Day. They remember October 10, 1911 as the birth of their country, and this year Taiwan will be celebrating the 99th anniversary of the Republic of China's National Day. Taiwan has developed into a strong democracy that continues to promote the freedom of its people. The ingenuity and hard work of the Taiwanese helps to establish Taiwan as a leader on the yearly Index of Economic Freedom. They serve as a model for those across the world who aspire for the freedom and individualism that Taiwan protects for its citizens. As a leader of free people, I commend the Taiwanese government for serving as a beacon of light to people around the world. The United States and Taiwan have a long history of mutual trade, leadership and friendship. I am proud that Taiwan remains a close friend of the United States. I am also pleased to call many of my counterparts in the Legislative Yuan my friends. As they celebrate their 99th National Day on October 10, 2010, my friends and the Taiwanese people have my warmest wishes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It is a fair compromise. It deals with conflicting issues, and it looked at the data on who was indicted and who has been sentenced both by race as well as by the amount of cocaine that they possessed. Unlike some allegations, this bill does not let those who possess crack cocaine off easily. The sentencing disparity is 18-to-1. That means that someone who possesses crack cocaine only has to have one- eighteenth of the amount of someone who possesses powder cocaine. So I don't think that people who either deal in crack cocaine or who possess crack cocaine are getting off the hook by reducing the ratio from 100- to-1 to 18-to-1. The Sentencing Commission has been set up by this Congress to look at sentencing patterns and look at sentencing statistics. For the last 15 years, they have called for a change in the disparity and the minimum sentences between those who are indicted for violating the crack cocaine laws versus those who are indicted for violating the powder cocaine laws. This is a very fair compromise. I salute the three members of the other body who worked the compromise out. It is a compromise that should be endorsed by this body and sent to the President. I urge an ``aye'' vote.