F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, listening to the opponents of this bill, one would be led to believe if this bill passes, prisoners are not going to have anything to do and there will be nothing but prison riots. And when they get out of prison, they will go back to a life of crime because they do not have the skills. That is not true. This bill authorizes $75 million a year for rehabilitation and training, vocational training so when they get out of the prisons, they will be equipped to compete in the job market. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said it correctly, the question is here who pays for the rehabilitation of prisoners, and who pays for giving them vocational training. Vote this bill down, and it is on the back of the small business owners and the people who work and pay taxes to try to compete in Federal Government procurement. Pass this bill, and the taxpayers will pay for it, which they ought to.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the author of this bill.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Scott amendment. Mr. Chairman, in order to put this amendment in context, it is important that we have a history lesson. When the Federal Prison Industries law was created in 1934, there was a compromise that was struck by President Roosevelt between the advocates and business and labor who objected to Federal Prison Industries that the results of inmate labor, whether it was Federal, State or local, would be prohibited from interstate commerce which meant the commercial market. This statutory prohibition is now codified in 18 United States Code 1761(a). Fifty-five years went by, and the statute was always interpreted to prohibit the commercial sale of the results of inmate labor products as well as services, even though the statute that was passed in 1934 did not explicitly mention services. In 1998, Federal Prison Industries got a legal interpretation that did not come from the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel as most opinions come from, but in a legal memorandum from a special counsel in the Office of Enforcement Operations in the criminal division of the Department of Justice which supervises both FPI and the Bureau of Prisons. The new interpretation provided that FPI and the prison industries of the States and their local governments could sell inmate-furnished services, either directly or in partnership with the private sector, without restrictions; and those restrictions included restrictions against the displacement of noninmate workers or the payment of wages comparable to wages being paid outside the prison to noninmate workers of private firms that provide the same type of services. With this new interpretation that came about as a result of a Department of Justice learned legal opinion in 1998, subminimum-wage prison inmates could compete directly in the services market, but not in the goods market, against people on the outside who have to receive minimum wage and also have to pay taxes on their wages. The business community raised very strong objections in 1998 to this legal interpretation, and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation of the Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on this issue on September 20, 2000. What section 7 does is to make it explicit that the prohibitions that have been in the law since 1934 against goods entering the commercial market also covers services. This, I guess, brings the law up-to-date as our economy has gradually evolved from a manufacturing and goods-oriented economy to a service- oriented economy. The amendment of the gentleman from Virginia strikes section 7, and if his amendment is adopted, that means that Federal Prison Industries, as well as State and local prison industries organizations, can directly compete in the commercial market in the services sector of the economy. When the compromise was struck during the Roosevelt administration, that door was supposedly slammed shut. This will make sure that the door is slammed shut so that the playing field is equal and FPI and State and local inmates cannot compete in the services market for subminimum wage. I hope that the amendment is defeated.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is a good one for a number of reasons, but I just would like to make it very clear what the amendment does. First, it requires that during the last 2 years of incarceration the inmate would be paid not less than $2.50 an hour; and, secondly, it would have a cap on how much inmates could be paid regardless of whether they were within 2 years of release or not within 2 years of release to 50 percent of the minimum wage by September of 2004 and the minimum wage by September 2009. Additionally, the amendment would save the funds for a prisoner in trust which would be paid to them upon their release, which would mean that when the prisoners are released, they would have some gate money in their pocket to be able to begin their lives anew and hopefully lead a crime-free rest of their lives. Now, with these two provisions this amendment is a very good one because it addresses two things. First of all, it helps level the playing field in terms of wages paid to FPI employees who are inmates with those of private sector employees who are making goods that are competing with the Federal Prison Industries. Secondly, it does give the prisoners an amount of money that has been held in trust for them so that they do not walk out of the prison with very little money in their pocket and perhaps are given a greater temptation to commit a crime in order to be able to put more money in their pocket to live. So I think that this is really a win-win situation. I would hope that the committee would approve this amendment because I do believe it deals with some of the concerns in this bill that are legitimate and which have been expressed by people who have some doubts over how this bill has been put together.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3349) to authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of the United States for fiscal year 2004.

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. 3349, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, by way of background, Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act in 1975 which was intended to give judges, Members of Congress and high-ranking executive branch officials automatic COLAs accorded other Federal employees unless rejected by Congress. In 1981, Congress amended the statute by enacting section 140 of Public Law 97-92, which requires a specific congressional authorization to grant judges a COLA. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is based on the template set forth in H.R. 16, now Public Law 108-6, which the House passed back in January and the President signed in February. H.R. 16 satisfied the section 140 requirement and thereby enabled judges to receive a COLA for this past fiscal year. H.R. 3349 accomplishes the same purpose for fiscal year 2004. One final point, Mr. Speaker. The House will recall that Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act in 1989 to address the issue of Federal public service compensation. The mechanism for raising judicial salaries under the Act is premised on congressional action following a Presidential recommendation. A key feature of the 1989 law, however, was, and still is, that certain Federal judicial salaries are effectively linked to those of Senators and House Members as set forth in a statutory pay schedule for executive officials. In other words, the Federal judges cannot receive a pay raise unless Congress is willing to increase its own compensation along with that of various executive branch officials. I do not believe that Congress should deviate from this construct by raising the salaries of life-tenured judges by nearly $25,000, as the Senate version of the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill would do. Along with many of our colleagues and other interested parties, I am not convinced that Federal judges work harder or have greater responsibility than Members of Congress or executive branch officials. I believe in fairness, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I introduced H.R. 3349, to ensure that Federal judges receive a COLA when other civil servants, including Members of Congress, receive theirs. I otherwise maintain that neither Congress nor the third branch is entitled to a massive pay raise at this point, and I would urge the House appropriators to reject any attempt to raise judicial salaries by deviating from the parameters set forth in the Ethics Reform Act. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3349 will assist in the administration of justice in our Federal courts and is otherwise noncontroversial and urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, the two gentlemen from Arizona and their arguments in opposition to the bill, I think, are really misdirected. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said that the system of federalism in terms of State public defenders is abused by this bill, and this really is not the case at all. One of the reasons capital convictions end up being overturned has been that there has not been adequate counsel. This bill provides money to make sure that there is adequate counsel, not just on the defense side, but on the prosecution side as well, because States that use a public defender system to provide a defense in capital cases are eligible under this bill for both prosecution and defense frames. The other gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) argues that the low standard for requiring new trials would allow criminals to go free. The bill does set appropriate standards for postconviction testing and new trials, but a judge must find that there is reasonable probability that the defendant did not actually commit the offense in order to even order a DNA test; and the preponderance of evidence standard would kick in once the court has ordered the test, and the test is either not inculpatory or is inconclusive. The court would then take the DNA test into account with all other evidence in deciding whether or not to order a new trial. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It will ensure that the guilty have a better chance of being convicted and will serve their punishment, and those who are innocent will have a better chance of being found not guilty and go free. I urge the House to support this bill.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3214) to eliminate the substantial backlog of DNA samples collected from crime scenes and convicted offenders, to improve and expand the DNA testing capacity of Federal, State, and local crime laboratories, to increase research and development of new DNA testing technologies, to develop new training programs regarding the collection and use of DNA evidence, to provide post-conviction testing of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent, to improve the performance of counsel in State capital cases, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, news stories extolling the successful use of DNA to solve crimes abound. Consider the following: in 1999, New York authorities linked a man through DNA evidence to at least 22 sexual assaults and robberies that had terrorized the city. In 2002, authorities in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Fort Collins, Colorado, used DNA evidence to link and solve a series of crimes perpetrated by the same individual. In the State of Washington during 2001, DNA evidence provided a major breakthrough of the ``Green River'' killings, a series of crimes that had remained unsolved for years despite a large law enforcement task force and a $15 million investigation. DNA is generally used to solve crimes in one of two ways. In cases where a suspect is identified, a lawfully obtained sample of that person's DNA can be compared to evidence from the crime scene. The results of this comparison may help establish whether the suspect committed the crime. In cases where a suspect has not yet been identified, biological evidence from the crime scene can be analyzed and compared to offender profiles in DNA databases to help identify the perpetrator. DNA evidence has also been used successfully to free individuals who have been wrongfully convicted. In my home State of Wisconsin, one such individual, Steven Avery, was exonerated by DNA evidence after serving more than 17 years in the Stanley Correctional Institution in Chippewa County for a sexual assault and attempted murder he did not commit. He was released last month, by the same judge who sentenced him in 1986, after DNA tests exonerated him. Evidence collected from the victim was determined to belong to another inmate, who is serving time for a different sexual assault. In the late 1980s, the Federal Government laid the groundwork for a system of national, State, and local DNA databases for the storage and exchange of DNA profiles. This system, called the Combined DNA Index System, CODIS for short, maintains DNA profiles obtained under Federal, State, and local systems in a series of databases that are available to law enforcement agencies across the country for law enforcement purposes only. Currently, all 50 States and the Federal Government have laws requiring that DNA samples be collected from some categories of offenders for inclusion in CODIS. Evidence from a crime scene can be linked to other crime scenes through the use of the CODIS database to identify repeat offenders or serial criminals. CODIS can be used to compare crime scene evidence to a database of DNA profiles obtained from convicted offenders. We are fortunate to have this tool available to ensure accuracy and fairness in our criminal justice system. It has the potential to make our great justice system even better. However, if DNA samples are not tested, or not entered into the databases, that potential is completely wasted. Sadly, the reality is that many samples are not being tested or recorded in the database. To have this tool available and not to fully use it is tragic. Many crimes could be solved, many guilty people could be taken off the streets, and many victims could be spared from further crimes. Despite DNA's enormous potential, the current Federal and State DNA collection and analysis system suffers from a variety of problems. In many instances, public crime labs are overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples, samples that could be used to solve violent crimes if the States had the funds to eliminate this backlog. Some estimates indicate that DNA evidence from at least 300,000 rape crime scenes have been collected but never analyzed in a crime lab. In addition, many of the labs are ill equipped to handle the increasing flow of DNA samples and evidence. The problems of backlogs and the lack of up-to-date technology result in significant delays in the administration of justice. The system needs more research to develop faster methods to analyze DNA evidence. Legal and medical personnel need additional timing and assistance in order to ensure the optimal use of DNA evidence to solve crimes and assist victims. The criminal justice system needs the means to provide DNA testing in appropriate circumstances for individuals who assert that they have been wrongly convicted. This legislation, cosponsored by 250 Members of the House, will help eliminate these problems. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation authorizes $755 million over 5 years to eliminate the current backlog of rape kits and other crime scene evidence awaiting DNA analysis in crime labs. It authorizes funding for training for law enforcement, correctional, court, and medical personnel on the use of DNA evidence. H.R. 3214 funds research to improve forensic technology and authorizes $10 million per year in grants to States, local governments, and tribal governments to eliminate forensic backlogs. It also authorizes funding for the use of forensic DNA technology to identify missing persons and unidentified human remains. Most of these provisions are part of the President's DNA initiative. H.R. 3214 also seeks to prevent wrongful convictions. The Innocence Protection Act provisions of H.R. 3214, which are also the result of bipartisan and bicameral negotiations, will ensure that our justice system is working. They establish rules for post-DNA testing of Federal prison inmates and require the preservation of biological evidence in Federal criminal cases where the defendant remains incarcerated. These provisions also authorize funding to help States to provide competent legal services for both the prosecution and the defense in death penalty cases. They provide funds for postconviction DNA testing and bonus grants to States that adopt adequate procedures for providing postconviction DNA testing and preserving biological evidence. This legislation came out of the Committee on the Judiciary by a vote on 28 to 1. After that vote, a few Members raised concerns about the new grant program in title III which provides grants to States which put an effective system in place for appointing and compensating attorneys in capital cases. Members from States that already have a system established by statute felt that those States should be eligible to receive these grants for improving both prosecution and defense training. Along with a few other technical tweaks, the manager's amendment allows those States to be eligible for these grants. Additionally, the manager's amendment provides improvements to the CODIS and NDIS databases by allowing DNA samples which have been lawfully collected, other than from arrestees or voluntary samples, to be entered into CODIS. DNA samples from arrestees may be analyzed for a match in the database but may not be retained. This distinction provides a balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to solve crimes. I think States like Louisiana, which recently had to track down a serial killer, can appreciate the importance of this change in the law. Finally, I would like to respond to a couple of the complaints that I have heard about this legislation. I have heard that this bill funds advocacy for those who are opposed to capital punishment. That is not the case at all. The legislation specifically prohibits the direct or indirect use of grant funds for representation in a particular case, and the report language further specifies that grants cannot be used for advocacy. Finally, I heard some complaints from people who support capital punishment that the innocent protection provisions in this bill will make it more difficult for the death penalty to be imposed upon those who have been convicted and have exhausted their appeals. Let me say that I am a supporter of capital punishment; and unless we use the most modern technology to make sure that those who are convicted are indeed guilty, and those who are not guilty are not put to death, sooner or later the Supreme Court will accept the invitation and declare capital punishment per se a violation of the Constitution. I believe that this bill is something that death penalty supporters should be supporting because it will provide for a greater degree of accuracy in making sure that those who are convicted of a crime and sentenced to death by a jury in those States which do allow for capital punishment are truly guilty. I believe that we have crafted a bill that will do much to assist law enforcement in solving crimes and ensuring that the right people are convicted. I urge my colleagues to recognize the benefit of this legislation and vote in favor of its passage today. 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3214, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who has been one of the principal motivators behind this legislation. (Mr. LaHood asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3348) to reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3348, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the last few years, we have had to make a lot of adjustments in security for our Nation's airports, government buildings, and ports. We have recognized that this heightened security is necessary to protect the United States from terrorist threats. However, even before the events of September 11, 2001, Members of Congress recognized the possibility of threats from terrorists, both from within and without our borders. In 1988, Congress passed a ban on undetectable firearms to prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, shipping, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms that could not be detected by metal detectors or x- ray machines. Since passengers are not permitted to bring firearms on to planes and individuals cannot bring firearms into government buildings, it only makes sense that we ensure that the firearms purchased in this country are detectable by the security machines in those places. The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 provided a sunset on the ban after 10 years to take into account any changes in technology of security machines or firearms. The ban was extended in 1998 for an additional 5 years, and H.R. 3348 would extend this ban for an additional 10 years. The penalties will remain the same: any violation of the ban is punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to 5 years. It is easy to see why this ban, now more than ever before, must be extended. This is not the time to put our Nation's airports in jeopardy by allowing individuals to pass through security with undetected firearms. Plastic firearms, which are real guns that can do real harm, can breach this security. We can prevent that by prohibiting the manufacture of plastic firearms in the first place, and that is what this bill does. I would point out that both the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Department of Justice support this legislation. I would like to read into the Record a letter which I received 2 days ago from Chuck Cunningham, director of Federal affairs for the NRA: Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of our 4 million members, I am writing to express our support for H.R. 3348, your legislation to extend the sunset of the restriction of undetectable firearms. ``It is very important to be absolutely clear about the history of this legislation. When originally passed in 1988, the Undetectable Firearms Act did not ban any existing firearm. The extension of this restriction would also not prohibit any firearm in production today. This legislation was and still is purely preventive. The sunset provision was included as a way to balance the possible future development of nonmetallic firearms against likely improvements in detection technology. The statute also allows the executive branch to reduce restrictions under the bill to adapt to those changes. ``Based on the current state of firearms and detection technology, we believe that a straight 10-year extension is an appropriate way to allow continued flexibility, while removing the issue beyond current political debates. Please let me know if we can be of assistance in the speedy passage of this legislation. This is signed, ``Charles H. Cunningham, Director of Federal Affairs'' for the National Rifle Association. I believe that this is commonsense legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, H.J. Res. 63 amends the Compacts of Free Association between the United States and the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. The Compacts, agreed to in the 1980s, provide that the United States will support the new island nations economically and that we can establish, by agreement, military bases in their territories and foreclose access to the nations by military personnel of third countries. As to the Marshall Islands, a major subsidiary agreement allows the United States continued use of the Kwajalein missile test range. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs Peter Brookes testified last year that ``it is in our best interest to maintain the full range of military access, use, and security cooperation options and rights that the Compact[s] provide[ ].'' The Compacts grant citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands the right to enter the U.S. without passports or visas, as nonimmigrants and lawfully engage in occupations. In recent years, the U.S. government has expressed a number of concerns regarding these immigration provisions. First, the ability of aliens claiming to be citizens of the two nations without having to have passports is an open invitation for abuse by terrorists. In addition, the government of the Marshall Islands has in the past been found to have sold passports. Second, some Americans have taken advantage of the ability of islanders to enter the U.S. to bring in adopted children without having to meet the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act regarding foreign adoptions that are designed to safeguard the interests of the adopted children and their biological parents. Finally, labor recruiters who arrange jobs in the United States for islanders have been abusing these unsophisticated workers, such as by not revealing the real nature of the jobs to be performed and charging prohibitive liquidated damages should the workers leave employment prematurely. The State Department utilized the looming expiration of the economic assistance provisions of the Compacts to persuade the nations to agree to needed modifications to the Compacts addressing these immigration concerns and other matters. These changes are contained in H.J. Res. 63. In order to address our security concerns, a number of changes have been made including barring entry to the U.S. under the Compacts of persons who were sold passports, limiting those naturalized citizens who can enter the U.S. pursuant to the Compacts, and requiring passports for entry to the U.S. As to adoptions, any child who is coming to the U.S. pursuant to an adoption outside the country or for the purpose of adoption in the United States, is ineligible for admission as a nonimmigrant under the Compacts. The child must be brought to the U.S. pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Separate agreements, which shall come into effect simultaneously with the Compacts, shall incorporate minimum obligations that labor recruiters will have to meet in order to protect Micronesians and Marshall Islanders who are recruited for work in the U.S. H.J. Res. 63 also includes a number of provisions within the claims, courts, criminal law and administrative law jurisdiction of the Committee. For instance, the Compacts are amended to provide that the governments of the nations are immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts and that the U.S. shall not be liable in their courts, and federal agencies are authorized to settle and pay tort claims arising from acts or omissions of their employees within the two nations. As to criminal law jurisdiction, provisions of the amended Compacts allow the United States to provide technical and training assistance to the governments of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. This assistance will facilitate the development and enforcement of their respective laws and allow for cooperation with the United States in the enforcement of U.S. laws. The postal inspection of contraband, extradition of fugitives, and the transfer of prisoners are among the mutual assistance in law enforcement matters addressed by the Compact. These issues are important not only in addressing the reality of the increased translational nature of general crime, but also are vitally important when confronting the issue of global terrorism. H.J. Res. 63 contains numerous beneficial changes to the Compacts of Free Association. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.