F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a constructive addition to the bill, I am prepared to support it, and urge that the Members adopt it. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, during this general debate we have heard from the opponents of this legislation that scientific research would come to a screeching halt if a ban on cloning of human embryos is enacted. There would be no more stem cell research, there would be no in vitro fertilization, and on and on and on. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill itself in section 302(d) says, and I quote, ``Nothing in this section restricts areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.'' What this section says is that all of this type of scientific research that is going on now will be able to continue as long as cloned human embryos are not used. That is a big difference. If a scientist wants to create human embryos and peddle them around the world and around this country to make a profit, that will be prohibited. But if a scientist wants to do scientific research, including stem cell research, on material other than cloned human embryos, which include adult stem cells, then that will be able to continue to proceed. This bill draws a line, a very reasonable line, between science and ethics. That reasonable line is whether a cloned human embryo is used. Should a cloned human embryo be created and used, yes, this bill criminalizes it, as it should; but if the research uses any other material besides cloned human embryos, the criminal penalties of this bill do not apply, and that research will be able to proceed. I would hope that the Members of this House will listen to the fine points of this debate and ignore allegations that have been made that are not contained in the bill, and pass it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 90 seconds. Mr. Chairman, what we just heard seems to indicate that the material we are talking about is ``just an egg.'' I would like to quote from Dr. John Gerhart, who is on the other side of this issue, he comes from Johns Hopkins University, at a press conference that was held yesterday by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the supporters of his amendment. Dr. Gerhart said, ``I contend it is an embryo. I don't think anybody is saying that it is just an egg.'' This follows along with what President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission stated in June of 1997. The executive summary says, ``The Commission begins its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. As I recall, when Moses came down from the mountain, he had 10 commandments with him. One of them said thou shalt not murder and the other said thou shalt not steal, and I do not think anybody in their right mind would say that criminal laws saying that murder and theft are criminal in nature is imposing religious views on anybody. They are both wrong; they are both criminal. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot). (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. This bill criminalizes the act of cloning humans, importing cloned humans and importing products derived from cloned humans. It is what is needed, and it is what President Bush has asked for, a comprehensive ban against cloning people. It has bipartisan cosponsorship and was reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary on February 12. Today we are considering more than the moral and ethical issues raised by human cloning. This vote is about providing moral leadership for a watching world. We have the largest and most powerful research community on the face of the earth and we devote more money to research and development than any other nation in the world. Although many other nations have already taken steps to ban human cloning, the world is waiting for the United States to set the moral tone against this experimentation. Currently in the United States there are no clear rules or regulations over privately funded human cloning. Although the FDA has announced it has the authority to regulate human cloning through the Public Health Service Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, this authority is unclear and has not been tested. The fact of the matter is that the FDA cannot stop human cloning, it can only begin to regulate it. This will be a day late and a dollar short for a clone that is used for research, harvesting organs, or born grotesquely deformed. In November 2001, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts announced that they had cloned the first human embryo. Others have indicated that they are prepared to utilize existing technology to clone a human baby. On December 26, 2002, Clonaid announced the birth of the first cloned human baby. Although the Clonaid announcement appears to have been a hoax, there are a growing number of individuals who claim that they can and will clone a human being. In light of these announcements, it has become imperative that the Congress act immediately to prevent the cloning of human embryos from continuing. Others argue that cloned humans are the key that will unlock the door to medical achievements in the 21st century. Nothing could be further from the truth. These miraculous achievements may be found through stem cell research but not from cloning. Let me be perfectly clear. H.R. 534 does not in any way impede or prohibit stem cell research that does not require cloned human embryos. This debate is whether or not it should be legal in the United States to clone human beings. Nothing more and nothing less. While H.R. 534 does not prohibit the use of cloning techniques to produce molecules, tissues, organs, plants, DNA cells other than human embryos, and animals other than humans, it does prohibit the creation of cloned embryos. This is absolutely necessary to prevent human cloning because, as we all know, embryos become people. If scientists were permitted to clone embryos, they would eventually be stockpiled and mass marketed. In addition, it would be impossible to enforce a ban on human reproductive cloning. Let me repeat that. It would be impossible to enforce a ban on human reproductive cloning because once a cloned human embryo is implanted into a woman's uterus, it can grow and become a baby. Therefore, any legislative attempt to ban human cloning must include embryos. Should human cloning ever prove successful, its potential applications and expected demands would undoubtedly and ultimately lead to a worldwide mass market for human clones. Human clones would be used for medical experimentation, leading to human exploitation under the good name of medicine. Parents would want the best genes for their children, creating a market for human designer genes. Again, governments would have to weigh in and decide questions such as what rights do human clones hold, who is responsible for them, who will ensure their health, and what interaction will clones have with their genealogical parent. As most people know, Dolly the sheep was cloned in 1996. Since that time, scientists from around the globe have experimentally cloned a number of monkeys, mice, cows, goats, lambs, bulls and pigs. It took 277 attempts to clone Dolly; 276 failures before success. These later experiments also produced a very low rate of success, a dismal 3 percent. Now some of the same scientists would like to add people, human beings, to this experimental list. As it turns out, Dolly the sheep was also a failure. It just took 6 years to realize it. On February 14, Dolly the sheep was euthanized as a result of complications linked to what some geneticists are speculating were signs of premature aging. Human cloning is both ethically and morally offensive. It diminishes the careful balance of humanity that nature has installed in each of us. I believe we need to send a clear and distinct message to the watching world that America will not permit human cloning and that it does not support scientific research into cloning human embryos. This bill sends this message, by permitting cloning research on human DNA molecules, cells, tissues, organs, or animals but preventing the creation of cloned human embryos. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to unequivocally say no to human cloning by supporting H.R. 534. Stop human cloning and preserve the integrity of mankind and allow legitimate scientific research to continue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I hereby submit the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary for the 108th Congress for publication in the Congressional Record. These rules were adopted by the Committee on February 12, 2003, in a meeting that was open to the public. Committee on the Judiciary Rules of procedure, Adopted February 12, 2003 rule i. The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittees with the following specific additions thereto. rule h. committee meetings (a) The regular meeting day of the Committee on the Judiciary for the conduct of its business shall be on Tuesday of each week while the House is in session. (b) Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman and a regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with when, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need therefor. (c) At least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the House is not in session) before each scheduled Committee or Subcommittee meeting, each Member of the Committee or Subcommittee shall be furnished a list of the bill(s) and subject(s) to be considered and/or acted upon at the meeting. Bills or subjects not listed shall be subject to a point of order unless their consideration is agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the Committee or Subcommittee. (d) The Chairman, with such notice to the ranking Minority Member as is practicable, may call and convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purpose pursuant to that call of the Chairman. (e) Committee and Subcommittee meetings for the transaction of business, i.e. meetings other than those held for the purpose of taking testimony, shall be open to the public except when the Committee or Subcommittee determines by majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House. (f) Every motion made to the Committee and entertained by the Chairman shall be reduced to writing upon demand of any Member, and a copy made available to each Member present. (g) For purposes of taking any action at a meeting of the full Committee or any Subcommittee thereof, a quorum shall be constituted by the presence of not less than one-third of the Members of the Committee or subcommittee, except that a full majority of the Members of the Committee or Subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for purposes of reporting a measure or recommendation from the Committee or Subcommittee, closing a meeting to the public, or authorizing the issuance of a subpoena. (h)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2), the Chairman may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment. The Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request at any time. (2) In exercising postponement authority under subparagraph (1), the Chairman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to notify Members on the resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote. (3) When proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. (i) Transcripts of markups shall be recorded and may be published in the same manner as hearings before the Committee and shall be included as part of the legislative report unless waived by the Chairman. rule III. hearings (a) The Committee Chairman or any Subcommittee chairman shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by it on any measure or matter at least one week before the commencement of that hearing. If the Chairman of the Committee, or Subcommittee, with the concurrence of the ranking Minority Member, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee or Subcommittee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business, the Chairman or Subcommittee chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (b) Committee and Subcommittee hearings shall be open to the public except when the Committee or Subcommittee determines by majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House. (c) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence before the Committee or any Subcommittee, a quorum shall be constituted by the presence of two Members. (d) In the course of any hearing each Member shall be allowed five minutes for the interrogation of a witness until such time as each Member who so desires has had an opportunity to question the witness. (e) The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the Committee which are decided to be printed shall be published in verbatim form, with the material requested for the record inserted at the place requested, or at the end of the record, as appropriate. Individuals, including Members of Congress, whose comments are to be published as part of a Committee document shall be given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the transcription in advance of publication. Any requests by those Members, staff or witnesses to correct any errors other than errors in the transcription, or disputed errors in transcription, shall be appended to the record, and the appropriate place where the change is requested will be footnoted. Prior to approval by the Chairman of hearings conducted jointly with another congressional Committee, a memorandum of understanding shall be prepared which incorporates an agreement for the publication of the verbatim transcript. rule iv. broadcasting Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee or any Subcommittee is open to the public, these proceedings shall be open to coverage by television, radio and still photography except when the hearing or meeting is closed pursuant to the Committee Rules of Procedure. rule v. standing subcommittees (a) The full Committee shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: antitrust law, tort liability, including medical malpractice and product liability, legal reform generally, and such other matters as determined by the Chairman. (b) There shall be five standing Subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary, with jurisdictions as follows: (1) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property: copyright, patent and trademark law, information technology, administration of U.S. courts, Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (2) Subcommittee on the Constitution: constitutional amendments, constitutional rights, federal civil rights laws, ethics in government, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (3) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law: bankruptcy and commercial law, bankruptcy judgeships, administrative law, independent counsel, state taxation affecting interstate commerce, interstate compacts, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (4) Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security: Federal Criminal Code, drug enforcement, sentencing, parole and pardons, terrorism, internal and homeland security, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, prisons, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (5) Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims: immigration and naturalization, border security, admission of refugees, treaties, conventions and international agreements, claims against the United States, federal charters of incorporation, private immigration and claims bills, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (c) The Chairman of the Committee and ranking Minority Member thereof shall be ex officio Members, but not voting Members, of each Subcommittee to which such Chairman or ranking Minority Member has not been assigned by resolution of the Committee. Ex officio Members shall not be counted as present for purposes of constituting a quorum at any hearing or meeting of such Subcommittee. Rule VI. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees Each Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the full Committee on all matters referred to it or under its jurisdiction. Subcommittee chairmen shall set dates for hearings and meetings of their respective Subcommittees after consultation with the Chairman and other Subcommittee chairmen with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of full Committee and Subcommittee meetings or hearings whenever possible. Rule VII. Non-Legislative Reports No report of the Committee or Subcommittee which does not accompany a measure or matter for consideration by the House shall be published unless all Members of the Committee or Subcommittee issuing the report shall have been apprised of such report and given the opportunity to give notice of intention to file supplemental, additional, or dissenting views as part of the report. In no case shall the time in which to file such views be less than three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the House is not in session). Rule VIII. Committee Records The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use according to the rules of the House. The Chairman shall notify the ranking Minority Member of any decision to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any Member of the Committee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, our Nation suffered a tragic loss on Saturday, when seven astronauts were killed in the shuttle Columbia's demise. We will long mourn that sad day and pray for the families of the astronauts. These men and women are true heroes who put their lives at risk for the betterment of mankind. Today, we come together as a legislative body to remember these brave astronauts and to express our condolences to their families and friends. My thoughts and prayers and those of my family are with the loved ones of the international crew of the Columbia. I can especially sympathize with the family of Dr. Laurel Clark, a Wisconsin native. A graduate of the University of Wisconsin, a loving mother and wife, and a first-time space voyager, Dr. Laurel Clark will be sorely missed. In the coming weeks, as our shock and disbelief subside, many questions will emerge: How did this accident happen? Could it have been prevented? Should the space program continue in the face of tragedy? Clearly, America must work to find the answers. I commend the men and women of NASA for all that they have done in the aftermath of this tragedy. As we did 17 years ago after the Challenger accident, a thorough and timely investigation must be conducted to find any problems, fix them, and move on. However, America must not let these events derail the progress that the space program has made and will continue to make. Already, NASA's research has unveiled numerous secrets about our planet and the universe beyond. Abandoning the space program would mean giving up on valuable research that could lead us to the discovery of cures for deadly diseases or other major scientific breakthroughs. We must not abandon these goals and let these brave astronauts' deaths be in vain. Instead, we should keep their memories with us as we continue to explore the potential benefits that lie in space. After all, it was in pursuit of these noble goals that seven astronauts gave their lives last Saturday.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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. 16) to authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of the United States for fiscal year 2003.

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 the bill, H.R. 16, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes Federal judges to receive the same cost of living pay adjustment that all Federal employees, including Members of Congress, have received for calendar year 2003. 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 other high-ranking Executive Branch officials automatic COLAs as accorded other Federal employees unless rejected by Congress. In 1981, Congress enacted section 140 of Public Law 97-92, which requires specific congressional action authorizing judges the COLA. Mr. Speaker, in the closing days of the 107th Congress, we failed to provide a COLA for Federal judges. This constitutes an inequity, since Members of Congress and all other Federal employees did receive a COLA in 2003. The bill is straightforward. It simply provides for a cost-of-living adjustment for Federal judges consistent with the law. The President and the Chief Justice of the United States support granting judges a COLA now. The bill will assist in the administration of justice in our Federal courts and is otherwise noncontroversial. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I think at this point in the debate, it is proper to give a little history of how judicial salaries have been set. The last time Congress visited the whole issue of executive, legislative, and judicial salaries was in the Ethics Reform Act in 1989. Prior to 1989, there was a quadrennial commission that met every 4 years to decide what would be fair compensation for Federal judges, Members of Congress, and senior members of the executive branch, except the President whose salary was set through another process. This commission, which was comprised of people outside government, always recommended that there be significant pay raises for all of the officials covered in the old law. The pay raises were so significant that there was a huge public outcry, and Congress ended up rejecting those recommendations almost uniformly because of pressure from our constituency. So in 1989 when Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act, it abolished the quadrennial commission, and it replaced it with a citizens' commission on public service and compensation. That was 14 years ago, and the new commission has never met. This same law stated that the salaries of the district judges would be the same as salaries of Members of Congress, and there has been a linkage of the district judges' salaries and that paid United States Senators and United States Representatives since. So as our salaries have gone up through cost-of- living increases, the judicial salaries have also gone up; and it was usually because there was a provision put in an appropriations bill that gave the judges the same COLA as Members of Congress and executive branch officials. I know every year the Chief Justice talks about the inequity in pay of Federal judges and those who practice before them. I think he has a very valid point. But the points that the Chief Justice makes miss the point of the 1989 law completely; and I think that if we are talking about a judicial pay raise, it is incumbent upon those who are supporting it, which is not me at this time, to answer two questions: What should be the compensation of district judges, appeals judges, and justices of the Supreme Court of the United States? And why are the responsibilities of the Federal judiciary so much more than the responsibilities of United States Senators and United States Representatives that they deserve to be paid out of the taxpayers' treasury a considerably higher pay than the Senators and the Representatives, which I think have at least equal and probably much greater responsibilities on a day-to-day basis than members of the Federal judiciary have. The burden of proof, to use a judicial term, on why the judicial salaries should be delinked from the legislative and executive branch salaries is on the Federal judiciary and those who advocate such a delinkage. In none of the statements that I have seen from the advocates of higher judicial salaries has there been one argument in favor of why these salaries should be delinked. Because the Congress last fall failed to pass the same COLA as Members of Congress and the executive branch received, this bill is fair, this bill is necessary, and this bill should be supported. But until we get answers to the other two issues that I have raised, I do not think we should amend the basic law that was passed in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. I urge the House to pass this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2002, the House passed H.R. 5469, the ``Small Webcaster Amendments Act of 2002,'' under suspension of the Rules. Earlier this evening, the Senate passed a substitute version of the bill, which I urge the House to adopt by unanimous consent. By way of background, H.R. 5469 as originally drafted suspended the implementation of the Librarian of Congress's decision regarding royalty rates that webcasters must pay to copyright owners for the performance of copyrighted works for six months beginning on October 20. At the time, the purpose of this delay was to ensure that all parties would receive the judicial process to which they are entitled under the law before the rate took effect. H.R. 5469 placed a burr under the saddle of both the copyright holders and the small webcasters to conclude negotiations on these matters that began last summer. The parties negotiated around the clock and arrived at a deal that set new rates and payment terms, obviating the need for further legal or administrative intervention. Following House passage of H.R. 5469, Senator Helms expressed concerns regarding the potential effect of codifying the actual agreement in the statute on future rate proceedings. As a result, and after further negotiations in the past two days, the parties have developed the Helms substitute before us which makes the following changes: It contains a ``findings'' section which explains the need for the legislation. It suspends the obligation of non-commercial webcasters, such as college radio stations, to pay copyright holders royalties owed until June 20, 2003. This will give both sides extra time to negotiate a new deal. Under H.R. 5469 as originally passed by the House, SoundExchange, the non-profit entity which collects and distributes royalties owed copyright holders, is permitted to deduct its operating and legal expenses from collected fees. The substitute retains this feature and also permits any other for-profit entity designated as an agent by the affected copyright holders to deduct its expenses in the same manner. SoundExchange is authorized to negotiate an agreement on behalf of all copyright owners and performers with small webcasters. Affected small commercial webcasters will not pay royalties through December 15, 2002, which is intended to facilitate the implementation of a settlement identical to the terms set forth in H.R. 5469 as passed by the House. The Comptroller General and the Register of Copyrights will develop a joint report for the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary regarding the effect of ``economic arrangements among small webcasters and third parties'' on royalty fees owed copyright holders. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend both the small webcasters and the copyright owners for their diligent efforts to reach an agreement. I understand that this is a complex and controversial issue and both sides met the challenge by continuing to negotiate in good faith. H.R. 5469, as amended, is a good bill. It will ultimately accomplish the same goal as H.R. 5469 as passed by the House, only in a different way. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Taken From the Speaker's Table and Concurred in Senate Amendment H.R. 3833, to facilitate the creation of a new, second-level Internet domain within the United States country code domain that will be a haven for material that promotes positive experiences for children and families using the Internet, provides a safe online environment for children, and helps to prevent children from being exposed to harmful material on the Internet, and for other purposes. Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, it is the standard rule for conference reports, but also in opposition to the conference report itself because it fails to include critical liability protections for victims of terrorism, which are particularly important because the conference report creates a Federal indemnification program that puts the American taxpayer on the hook for damages caused by terrorists. It is important to note what the trial lawyers did first to mark the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11. They are suing American companies that were victims of terrorist attacks themselves. According to the Washington Post: ``Things really are returning to normal a year after the terrorist attacks. Trial lawyers-- surprise!--are headed back to the courthouse, [and] there is a rush by lawyers to sue airport operators, airlines, security companies, the builders of the World Trade Center and others.'' Let us face the facts. Terrorist-inspired litigation is not a garden variety tort case. A banana peel is an accident waiting to happen, but a terrorist is a suicidal fanatic bent upon killing individuals, innocent people, and causing mass destruction of property. Even the most diligent property owners cannot always guard against such attacks. To protect innocent Americans, the provisions in the terrorism insurance legislation the House passed a year ago provided that, in a lawsuit for damages arising out of a terrorist attack, no punitive damages would be allowed against victims of terrorism. The bill before us today fails to include that basic protection; and, in doing so, it fails to ensure that Americans do not become the victims of terrorists twice: first during the initial wave of death and destruction caused by the terrorists and second by the legal aftershocks caused by the unquantifiable and unpredictable damage claims brought by the plaintiffs' bar. While the bill before us today excludes punitive damages awarded in court from insured losses paid by the United States taxpayer, the mere allegation of punitive damages always boosts the settlement value of the cases, and this bill leaves U.S. taxpayers paying the inflated costs of those cases settled out of court. So what the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), my friend, said, he is right, we taxpayers do not pay punitive damages, but knowing that there is a punitive damage award hovering over there means that the settlement value which is paid by the taxpayers ends up costing the taxpayers' money. So it requires the American taxpayers to engage in an egregious form of national self- flagellation. American taxpayers are punished for the evil acts of foreign enemies. Even the Washington Post's editorial page has stated: ``On insurance, the Democrats are objecting to Republican proposals to ban punitive damages in the event of terrorist attacks, which seems a reasonable proposal. The Democratic position on terrorism insurance smacks of the trial bar, which never saw a disaster that didn't justify a lawsuit.'' And just a few weeks ago, the Washington Post stated that ``the Democrats should indeed be embarrassed'' by their efforts to defend lawyers at the expense of the American economy. It is no surprise to me that all Democratic conferees signed this conference report. The terrorism insurance bill the House passed last year also provided the defendants could only be liable for the amount of damages for pain and suffering in direct proportion to the defendant's percentage of responsibility for harm. That provision allows Americans who are victims of terrorists to rely, at the very least, on their own innocence to protect them from liability. My colleagues may remember that in the No Child Left Behind Act, which overwhelmingly passed both the House and the Senate, the very same rule was applied to protect teachers. If that provision is good enough for teachers, it should be good enough for victims of terrorism. The bill that the House passed last year also provided that fees for attorneys suing victims of terrorism could not be greater than 20 percent of the damages awarded or any amount of the settlement received. That provision is simply a continuation of the long-standing Federal policy behind the Federal Tort Claims Act, namely that lawyers should not profit excessively when they are paid from the United States Treasury. Especially today, in a time of war, excessive lawyer fees drawn from the U.S. Treasury should not be allowed to result in egregious war profiteering at the expense of victims, jobs, and businesses; and this bill, unfortunately, will allow this one segment of our society to legally, with the blessing of the United States Congress, engage in war profiteering. This conference report does not include these protections for the victims of terrorism that were in the bill the House passed a year ago. It gives the plaintiffs' bar the keys to the United States Treasury, and it gives lawyers a license to further prey on the victims of terrorism. We passed a compensation program the week after 9/11 for the survivors of the victims of those attacks, and some of the proceedings that have gone on under that law have resulted in embarrassment to the public and to the authors of that act and grist for investigative reporters. Should, God forbid, there be another terrorist attack and the provisions of this bill come into play, that same embarrassment will apply. There is an old adage ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'' Let us not shame us by passing this bill. It should be voted down.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, let me insert for the Record the memo written on October 4, 2002 by the Honorable Kenneth Starr addressed to Mr. Bartlett of the Financial Services Roundtable, since the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has repeatedly referred to it. Washington, DC, October 4, 2002. Hon. Steve Bartlett, President, the Financial Services Roundtable, Washington, DC Dear Mr. Bartlett: This letter responds to your request for my views with respect to Section 330 of the Conference Report on H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2002. In particular, you requested my view concerning two aspects of Section 330: the effect it will have on anti-abortion protests, be they lawful or unlawful; and the effect it will have on other types of protests, including the recent IMF/World Bank protests. In my view, Section 330 will have very little practical effect. Importantly, the provision does not penalize any lawful behavior. To the contrary, it applies only if (i) a person violates the law; (ii) a court then enters an award against that person or the person settles the charges; (iii) the person later files a bankruptcy other than a Chapter 13 bankruptcy; (iv) the person thereafter seeks to discharge a debt based on fines, damage awards, or other penalties assessed because of the unlawful protest activity; and (v) the creditor continues to pursue the matter. Even then, Section 330 overlaps almost entirely with Bankruptcy Code Sec. 523(a), which already prohibits the discharge of fines payable to the government and civil damages resulting from intentional injury to others. As a result, Section 330 will have at most minimal practical effect. What is more, the Conference version of Section 330 contains rigorous intent requirements that should prevent any innocent protesters from being swept up in its provisions. Thus, even if Section 330 does have some limited practical effect, that effect should be felt only by the intentional lawbreakers it expressly targets. In answer to your second question, Section 330 is written in an evenhanded, neutral fashion. It applies not only to abortion-related protests, but also to unlawful protests targeted at the providers of any lawful goods or services. By its express terms, Section 330 applies--with no exceptions-- to all those who unlawfully intimidate or interfere with a person by physical obstruction or threat of force if those actions were motivated by the person's obtaining or providing of any lawful goods or services. Thus, it would apply, for example, to the anti-IMF/World Bank protesters who apparently threw rocks through the window of a bank and attempted to impede delegates from entering or departing the World Bank's headquarters. So too, it would apply to similar protests by animal rights activists, environmentalists, and unions. It bears emphasis that the Conference compromise bill represents a substantial improvement over the original Senate bill. Under the Senate bill, debt related to an unproven allegation of ``harassment,'' or an unintentional violation of a court order, could have been nondischargeable. In contrast, under the Conference compromise, there must have been an actual and intentional ``violation'' of either the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 248 (``FACE''), or a court order. These significant improvements over the now-replaced Senate version are some of the reasons that Section 330 will not have significant practical or legal effect in light of the state of existing law. Section 330 is primarily a restatement of existing law Section 330 is primarily a restatement of existing law. The Bankruptcy Code has long provided that any debt ``for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit'' is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(7). As a result, criminal fines and civil penalties payable to the government are already nondischargeable. The Bankruptcy Code further provides that civil damages payable to private parties are nondischargeable if they result from ``willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.'' 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(6). The courts have interpreted this language broadly to include injuries to intangible personal or property rights. See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy para. 523.12[2] (15th ed. rev. 2002). As a result, the pivotal limitation on this provision is the intent element--a debt is nondischargeable in bankruptcy only if the debtor intentionally caused the injury. See Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the most important part of this bill is its dismantling of the dysfunctional Immigration and Naturalization Service. The bill abolishes the agency and separates immigration enforcement from immigration services, the key to reform. The immigration enforcement half of the INS becomes the Bureau of Border Security in the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security. The head of the enforcement bureau, the Assistant Secretary, will report to the Under Secretary of Border and Transportation Security and must have 5 years of law enforcement experience and 5 years of management experience. This work experience requirement will ensure that immigration enforcement is headed by someone with the expertise to enforce our immigration laws. The separation of this function from immigration services will allow the Assistant Secretary to focus on a single mission. As current events have shown with the July 4 Los Angeles Airport shooter, Lee Malvo, and other recent alien criminals who have been released by the INS, an unencumbered immigration enforcement unit is long overdue. The equally important immigration services half of the INS becomes the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services apart from other DHS components. The Director of the services bureau reports directly to the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. This will ensure that immigration services receives the attention and resources that it needs, and that it will not be forgotten and neglected in a department otherwise devoted to fighting terrorism. Our government must remain welcoming to immigrants who follow our laws. In addition, the bill requires separate budgets and accounts for the immigration services and enforcement bureaus so that each bureau receives all of its designated money and no poaching occurs, as has been known to happen between the two components in the current INS. While the bill permits the President to consolidate components within the two bureaus to make them more efficient, it prohibits the President from merging the two bureaus back into one agency. This should ensure that the INS as we know it is history and our years-long effort to restructure this failed agency will be accomplished. Mr. Speaker in addition to the monumental immigration and border security reforms contained in this bill, this legislation will profoundly affect Federal law enforcement. This legislation moves the Secret Service, Customs Service, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Office of Domestic Preparedness, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and other law enforcement functions into the DHS. At its core, homeland security is a law enforcement function, and law enforcement should be the predominant role. The Committee on the Judiciary will closely follow the integration of these important law enforcement entities to make sure they have the support and authority that they need to protect the country from terrorism and other criminal enterprises. Finally, this legislation moves the law enforcement function of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to the Department of Justice as a distinct entity and makes important changes to the way we enforce explosives law and regulations. I urge the membership to support this bill.