Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, due to a death in the family, I was unable to vote on the conference report for the fiscal year 2006 Military Quality of Life-Veterans Affairs appropriations act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, due to a death in the family, I was unable to vote on the conference report for the fiscal year 2006 Transportation-Treasury-Housing appropriations act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, due to a death in the family, I was unable to vote on H. Res. 563. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to a death in the family, I was unable to vote on H. Res. 571. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me, first of all, acknowledge that this is an important issue. Danish nationals are eligible for E-1 treaty trader visas pursuant to the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Denmark of October 1, 1951.

The U.S. and Denmark signed a protocol to the treaty on May 2, 2001, which would grant Danes eligibility for E-2 visas. That protocol is currently before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. However, since the Judiciary Committee began insisting in 2003 that trade agreements and treaties no longer contain immigration provisions, the Danish embassy has requested a grant of E-2 privileges through the normal legislative process.

H.R. 3647 would grant those privileges to Denmark. I support that grant of such privileges and therefore support H.R. 3647.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his able leadership in moving this bill forward expeditiously. One of the major accomplishments of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property last Congress was to see the Copyright Royalty Arbitration Royalty Panel reform bill from its inception to ultimate passage. The original bill accomplished much with a general overhaul of the administrative construct by which copyright royalties are determined and distributed based up the compulsory licenses authorized by the Copyright Act.

H.R. 1036, the Technical Corrections to the Copyright and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, which I introduced with the chairman of the subcommittee, makes a number of technical corrections. Some provisions merely change spelling and punctuation; others correct cross-references, paragraph numbering or editorial style in copyright law.

The corrections not in the aforementioned categories are merely technical as well. Those changes include amending the statute to correctly identify the roles of the copyright royalty judges and the librarian of Congress in authorizing and distributing royalty payments.

In addition, the bill addresses the omission of CARP decisions serving as precedent, establishes consistency for written direct statements and written rebuttal statements and provides fee waiver for those claiming less than $1,000.

I want to thank the Copyright Office, the legislative counsel and a number of outside groups for their assistance in noting many of the errors, and then their help in drafting this bill.

H.R. 1036 is an important step toward achieving clarity. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting H.R. 1036.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 866 is a bill introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers. The purpose of this bill is to make technical corrections to various provisions of titles 10, 23, 28, 36 and 40 of the U.S. Code. The bill updates cross-references, corrects typographical errors, makes stylistic changes, conforming capitalization, correcting the punctuation of certain words. It is a bill that the Office of Law Revision Counsel has prepared and submitted to the committee for consideration so that those titles of the Code that have been enacted into positive law may be kept current. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1442, a bill to complete the codification of title 46 of the U.S. Code, the ``Shipping'' title. It will enhance understanding of and compliance with important shipping and maritime laws. This makes no substantive change in the law. It simply provides clarity and reorganization. I urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H. Res. 547. I consider it simply a politically inspired continuation of court-bashing featuring a hypocritical change in thinking that all of a sudden wants to read into the Constitution rights that no court and no student of the Constitution has ever before found.

But I also believe that the conduct that was the subject of this case was offensive, foolish, inappropriate and perhaps even injurious and harmful to the students.

What is going on in the Palmdale Unified School District? What allows a group of educators to allow a survey that asks questions like this to people as young as in the first grade? But none of that speaks to the merits of this particular resolution. It was introduced only last week. The case only came down 2 weeks ago or so. Its merits have never been considered in the committee process. This resolution simply serves as an attack on ``the nature of the Ninth Circuit.'' It is consistent with the agenda of the majority. I am surprised they did not put the resolution into the reconciliation bill. It should not be supported by this House.

The resolution expresses the sense of the House that parents have a fundamental right to direct their children's education. No argument there. And the Ninth Circuit decision has done precisely that. The Ninth Circuit decision cites the Supreme Court decisions that the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, cited that have held it is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause that parents have the right to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children. The Ninth Circuit decision refers to the limitations placed on that right imposed by the First and Sixth Circuits, the circuits which first posed the supposed threat to parental control.

It was, after all, the First Circuit that held that ``this freedom,'' that is the right, the freedom to control decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children, ``this freedom does not encompass,'' does not encompass, the First Circuit, not Ninth Circuit, ``a fundamental right to dictate the curriculum at the public schools to which they have chosen to send their children.'' Furthermore, the First Circuit says, ``we cannot see that the Constitution imposes such a burden on State educational systems and, accordingly, find that rights of parents do not encompass a broadbased right to restrict the flow of information in the public schools.

And it was the Sixth Circuit's opinion that the Ninth Circuit adopted here which stated, ``while parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether they send their child to public school, they do not have the fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child.''

But there is no resolution criticizing the First and Sixth Circuit Court decisions which the author of the resolution should be directing his disapproval towards. The resolution instructs the Court to rehear this case en banc and reverse its decision. This skirts the already available processes for addressing a questionable decision, an en banc petition or an appeal to the Supreme Court. If those in this body want to ensure a broad right for parent-influenced education, opportunities exist for them to legislate this right.

The difference between a foolish, unwise and perhaps harmful decision by a local school district and arguing that that creates and violates some fundamental constitutional right is an incredible leap of faith. This is a school district in California. Why are the parents not at the School Board asking the principal of the school that allowed this graduate student to conduct this survey to be fired? Why are the parents not urging that, if the superintendent does not do that, the School Board fire the superintendent? Why are the parents not organizing the recall of the school board members if the school board members are allowing this kind of a thing to go on? Why are the parents not going to Sacramento and asking the State legislature to prohibit these kinds of surveys of first, third and fifth grade students which get into personal questions that are not appropriately asked in that point of view?

There are so many appropriate avenues open for parents to redress the damage here. And that is all this is. It is a court case after the fact seeking to create, out of whole cloth, a refinement of a constitutional right that no court has ever applied.

It is a small irony that the proponents of this resolution are requesting that the courts engage in a level of judicial activism in order to support their political views. The law should be ideologically neutral, and therefore, the sponsor should be pleased that the Court specifically refused to express a view on the wisdom of posing some of these questions asked or of condoning an inquiry into some of the particular areas surveyed by the school district. The Court did not affirm. It specifically refused to affirm the wisdom and judgment of the people who distributed and prepared and implemented this particular survey.

The ultimate paradox for the cosponsors, though, is the lack of consistency in bringing this resolution forward. When requesting that the right of privacy protects parents' decision making, they must rely on the same decisions which they abhor and claim to be the result of judicial activism, rights that are inferred in decisions such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, the penumbra, the unstated, unenumerated rights in the Constitution that some courts have found. Any strict analysis of the text of the Constitution cannot lead you to the conclusion that a fundamental constitutional right was violated here for which these parents are entitled to constitutional redress.

Could the proponents of this resolution actually be requesting that the Court read into the Constitution a right not explicitly enumerated in it? Do the sponsors want the Ninth Circuit to legislate from the bench? That does not sound like strict constructionism to me. So I think the issue is a serious one. The Constitution is not the place to go for recourse to rectifying the decisions that were made. There are many, many other alternatives, even tort actions dealing with the harm that was caused to the students who were subject to the survey; but not creating a new refinement of the constitutional right that two circuit courts have already said does not exist and, instead, as part of the agenda for bashing the Ninth Circuit and seeking to use the reconciliation bill to split the Ninth Circuit, provide us with one more chance to engage in that kind of game playing.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the other irony is, here we bash the court for not creating a new constitutional right, never before proclaimed in the context of this resolution, in order to overturn a local school decision and, at the same time, we whip bills through here left and right stripping the courts of jurisdiction to decide the cases.

Madam Speaker, I say, where is the Federalist Society when we need them? All of a sudden, everything flips around.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that right is very specifically protected in the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Madam Speaker, a few points. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania made compelling points about the stupidity and the danger of this kind of a survey. I have no argument whatsoever about the right of parents to have an important say in the education of their children.

The most fascinating thing about this argument is my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and the chairman of the committee are making a wonderful case for why you need to evolve notions of constitutional protections rather than be stuck with what the Framers were thinking at that time, because this was not happening at that time and the Framers were not thinking of it at the time.

What I am challenging is this notion that the answer to this particular outrage is a constitutional case in the

Federal courts. I repeat again: Where was the principal? Where was the superintendent? Where was the school board?

There are all kinds of ways in which a citizenry can take those issues into their hands. They could pass a State law prohibiting these kinds of surveys getting into these kinds of questions from being asked of first, third, and fifth graders. In fact, given this Congress's proclivities, we could just preempt local education and, at a Federal level, prohibit any local school district from doing this. This would not be so inconsistent with what we are doing in a number of other areas.

There are many courses here. The only issue is here is a Ninth Circuit that carefully follows, affirms the fundamental right of parents, acknowledges the limitations on that right imposed by the First and Sixth Circuits, specifically refuses to affirm the wisdom of a conduct of the survey that is the subject of a litigation, and then says we cannot find that we can essentially articulate a constitutional right here that gives people that kind of constitutional relief. Pursue all your other avenues for this ridiculous conduct. Make the people accountable. But it does not have to come from the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

We cannot solve all of society's problems and all of government's overstepping and improper conduct by virtue of constitutional law. I think the conservative position on this issue should be to oppose this kind of a resolution and oppose the logic that goes into thinking like this and tell people that there are many problems that have to be solved in ways other than simply trying to establish you had a constitutional right to be protected from this kind of wrong activity.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Edward Roybal was a man of dignity and determination. I had the great pleasure of serving in Congress with him for 10 years. During that time, we worked very closely on immigration issues and on many matters affecting Los Angeles and California. He was not only a colleague, but my mentor and my friend.

Ed served his country in the Army during WorId War II and returned to serve it as one of America's political trailblazers.

Beginning with his first election to the Los Angeles City Council in 1949, Ed's distinguished career in politics spanned more than six decades. He was the first Hispanic elected to the Council since 1881 and he served there for four terms. It would take 23 additional years before another Mexican American took a seat on the City Council.

Although ``just'' a city official, Ed was a vociferous critic of the excesses of the House Un-American Activities Committee--and Jewish leaders in Los Angeles well remember how he stepped forward in the early 1950s to welcome the prime minister of Israel to the City of Angels.

In 1962, he was elected to Congress--the first Hispanic from California to serve in Congress since 1879. From that first campaign, the support given him by his constituents was unwavering. He never received less than 66 percent in a general election. The three times he was challenged in a primary, he won by more than 80 percent.

From his position as chairman of the Appropriation Committee's Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, he sought funding for Alzheimer's victims, and for Alzheimer's disease research.

He introduced a medigap proposal, and had a universal health care bill. He promoted a measure to offset a national nursing shortage by providing funds to recruit and raise the salaries of nurses.

He also took on the cause of mental health treatment, passing provisions that expanded demonstration projects for rural mental health care and establishing a national mental health education program.

In 1985, he succeeded Representative Claude Pepper as chairman of the Select Committee on Aging. The two of them worked long and hard to provide funding for long-term health care for the chronically ill. In the 101st Congress, he helped enact legislation that reversed a 1989 Supreme Court ruling allowing age-based discrimination in employee benefits.

As a founding member and the first chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Ed mounted strong opposition to the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill because it imposed sanctions on U.S. employers who hired illegal immigrants. He worked against this provision with such intensity that it had to be brought up in three Congresses--two as Simpson-Mazzoli and one as Simpson-Rodino--before it finally won passage. I supported it, and learned in the process, that he could be not only a good friend, but a worthy adversary.

After his retirement from Congress, Ed maintained his interest in health care and public health programs and to this end, he founded the Edward R. Roybal Institute for Applied Gerontology at UCLA. The Centers for Disease Control named its Atlanta campus after him and named him their ``Champion of Prevention''--an honor reserved for individuals who have made significant contributions to public health. He was also honored by President Clinton with the highest civilian award in the Nation--the Presidential Medal of Freedom-- for his ``exemplary deeds of service for our Nation.''

No award meant more to him than the affection and respect of his family. He was enormously proud of his three children, Lucille, Lillian and Edward, Jr.--and I am certain that he was greatly pleased that his oldest daughter followed him into public service and into this great body, where U.S. Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard serves with dedication and distinction and where she is one of my favorite colleagues.

I am privileged today to tell you of my enormous regard and high esteem for Edward R. Roybal--a mentor for a whole generation of Hispanic community leaders, a prominent national advocate for the elderly and the infirm, and a great champion for civil rights and social justice.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to rise today to recognize a dear friend and an outstanding educator, Maria Reza. In June 2005, Maria retired after 36 years of dedicated service to the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Maria believes that ``to make a difference in the lives of our students, we must go beyond the classroom and work to improve the community and the environment in which they live.'' Throughout her career, Maria has embodied this belief and has dedicated her life to not only helping children learn in the classroom, but also to improving lives and conditions within our communities. Over the years, Maria has volunteered for the United Farm Workers, the Southwest Voter Registration Project and has devoted much of her life to serving the students and residents of the Northeast San Fernando Valley.

After graduating from San Fernando Valley State College, Maria started teaching at San Fernando High School in 1969. During her first year, she was recognized as ``Intern of the Year'' by the Los Angeles Unified School District Internship Program Office. In 1975, she was hired as a Resource Teacher in the Central Office and soon became District Home Economics Supervisor. She pioneered the Infant Study Program at Ramona, Roosevelt and Locke High Schools. This program continues to offer free childcare for high school age parents as well as provide them with valuable parenting skills.

As an assistant principal, Maria, along with a school nurse, Pam Wagner, established the first three school-based health clinics in LAUSD. The project faced much controversy and was opposed by some conservative organizations and churches. However, Maria knew the importance of providing health care to uninsured students and continued to work tirelessly to gain the support of students and parents. The proof of her efforts is overwhelmingly apparent today with over 40 school-based or school-linked clinics which provide a low cost, accessible form of health care. The demand for these programs continues to grow.

Among her many accomplishments, Maria Reza has distinguished herself as a strong female role model in the community. She has been recognized twice as ``Woman of the Year,'' in 1992 by State Senator David Roberti and again in 1998 by State Senator Richard Alarcon. She was invited to participate in the HOPE, Hispanas Organized for Political Equality, leadership training and this year chaired the Adelante Mujer Conference, giving 300 young women the opportunity to attend career workshops conducted by professional Latinas.

Maria also has the distinction of being married to my good friend Alex Reza, a retired educator and an extraordinary community activist whom I have had the pleasure of knowing for many years. She is also the mother of three sons, Lance, Roman and David.

Mr. Speaker, Maria has set an admirable example for those who are committed to making a difference in the lives of others. It is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Maria Reza, a woman whose dedication and achievements are a credit to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened today to learn of the death of Simon Wiesenthal, one of the world's great humanitarians. Over the past 50 years he tirelessly fought to preserve the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust and dared the world to learn from their mistakes.

Wiesenthal, along with his wife Cyla, survived the Holocaust determined to bring those responsible to justice, for this, the most monstrous event in the history of the modem world. Though he weighed only 100 Ibs when he was liberated from the notorious Mauthausen concentration camp, Wiesenthal soon began the enormous task of compiling evidence against Nazi war criminals.

Even before the war ended, Wiesenthal was working with the U.S. Army to gather evidence

to be used in future war crimes trials. Wiesenthal also came to the aid of refugees who survived the war by serving as the head of the Jewish Central Committee of the United States Zone in Austria. This marked the beginning of a long career dedicated to pursuing those who helped perpetrate the Holocaust.

While the world tried to forget the tragedy that had unfolded through much of Europe, Wiesenthal was determined to keep alive the memory of its victims. He soon abandoned his previous life as an architect when the Allies lost interest in prosecuting war criminals. Wiesenthal himself led the campaign for justice from his own apartment in Vienna, tracking down Nazis around the globe attempting to escape prosecution. Over 1,100 war criminals were brought to justice with Wiesenthal's help, including the architect of the ``Final Solution,'' Adolf Eichmann.

Wiesenthal's tireless hunt for Nazi war criminals stemmed from his belief that the world must never forget the scope of human suffering endured during the Holocaust, lest such a conflagration take place again in the future. He declared:

The history of man is the history of crimes, and history

can repeat. So information is a defense. Through this we can

build, we must build a defense against repetition.

And so he managed to transform the most tragic event into a learning experience for all of humanity. The Simon Wiesenthal Center based in Los Angeles was established to--through interactive workshops, exhibits, and videos--explore issues of prejudice, diversity, tolerance, and cooperation in the workplace and in the community. His idea was that teaching respect for people of different race, religion, color would be a way of preventing history from repeating itself.

Though Wiesenthal is no longer with us, his legacy will be felt for generations to come. In addition to fighting racism, anti-Semitism, and genocide, the center that bears his name continues to investigate hundreds of surviving war criminals who have escaped justice. And of course, he reminded us to never forget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the life of Chief Justice Rehnquist. Justice Rehnquist was devoted to the highest Court of the land and, more broadly, to our system of justice; and throughout his long tenure, he served them both admirably. During his 33 years on the Court, 19 of which were as Chief Justice, he chartered a definitive path which reflected his philosophy and left an unquestionable impact on the direction of the Court.

In his early years on the Court, at a time when his approach to constitutional interpretation often was not shared by a majority on the Court, Justice Rehnquist stuck closely to his principles, earning him the moniker ``The Lone Ranger.'' Over time, he was joined by other Justices who shared his ideology, and he was able to craft majorities that moved the Court towards adopting his vision of the law. To his great credit, when faced with a conflict between his own strongly held position and the dictates of stare decisis, as happened with recent efforts to limit the Miranda decision, he frequently sided with precedent.

While it is fair to say that over the years on decisions which have split the Court, I have probably disagreed with Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinions more often than I have agreed with them; however, I have admired many of his efforts to protect the independence of the judiciary and his willingness to criticize his own party.

Chief Justice Rehnquist often stated his discomfort with Congress encroaching on a court's prerogative in an attempt to guard judicial independence. He lashed out at those attempting to impeach judicial activists and threaten judges for rulings they did not like. ``The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges but to promote the rule of law. Judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction,'' he once said.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist also criticized Congress for repeatedly enacting Federal criminal laws that overlap State laws. The States have the primary role in the area of crime and law enforcement, he said in his annual message on the judiciary, and Congress needs to think twice before turning ``every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime'' into a new Federal law. ``The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts not only is taxing the judiciary's resources,'' he said, ``but it also threatens to change entirely the nature of the Federal system. Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes, no matter how sensational or heinous the crimes may be. State courts do, can, and should handle such problems.''

The impact of Congress having relegated more complex and time- consuming cases appropriate for State court adjudication to Federal jurisdiction, such as Congress did with class action reform, warranted Rehnquist's rebuke: ``Congress should commit itself to conserving the Federal courts as a distinctive judicial forum of limited jurisdiction in our system of federalism. Civil and criminal jurisdiction should be assigned to the Federal courts only to further clearly define national interests, leaving to the State courts the responsibility for adjudicating all other matters. This long-range plan for Federal courts is based not simply on the preferences of Federal judges but on the traditional principle of federalism that has guided this country throughout its existence.''

As noted by the New York Times, Chief Justice Rehnquist was also duly critical of hastily enacted limitations on judicial sentencing decisions and the potential damage that compiling information on the sentencing habits of individual judges could do to fair and impartial justice. Chief Justice Rehnquist plainly saw his role as defender in chief of the Nation's independent court system, which he famously called ``one of the crown jewels of our system of government.''

His often practical approach to immeasurably weighty responsibility of having one out of nine votes on the most powerful Court in the country reflected his devotion and respect for the institution of the Supreme Court and its effect on the lives of all Americans. Nowhere did Justice Rehnquist's love for the Court shine through more than in his numerous books on Supreme Court history and lore.

Chief Justice Rehnquist also displayed considerable skill in managing an often divided Court. His colleagues have spoken of his deft ability, good humor, and impartiality as he led the Court through landmark cases. On top of this, he served for nearly 2 decades as the chief judicial officer of the Nation's Federal court system, constantly advocating for the resources needed to improve the courts' mission of delivering evenhanded justice throughout the Nation.

I would commend to my colleagues the op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday by Laurence Tribe, a frequent litigator in the Supreme Court who argued many, many cases, who speaks of Chief Justice Rehnquist's career there and finds many, many reasons to praise and admire him. He closes his article urging that as the Senate now considers the confirmation

of a new Chief Justice, they look to one of the issues that he felt Chief Justice Rehnquist so ably stood for and that is the ability of new Justices to help the Court earn the respect of all who take part in its proceedings or are affected by its rulings, which means everyone. ``Chief Justice Rehnquist,'' Professor Tribe noted, ``was a master at that mission. For that, and for the steadiness of his leadership, I will always remember him with profound gratitude and admiration.''

We are all saddened by the loss of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. As we mourn his death, regardless of our political differences, we must remember how he selflessly gave to the Court and the Nation. His work is an important legacy that impacts every American's life and will shape the lives of future generations. I join the Nation in applauding his accomplishments, and I express my sympathy for our collective loss.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank our wonderful ranking member for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I voted for the PATRIOT Act in 2001. I abstained in the Committee on the Judiciary this year because I was hoping that some of my concerns could be addressed through a rule that would allow some of these issues to be brought to the floor. But I am very disappointed to say that the rule that was adopted for this very important bill is designed to look like it is fair, because it allows a number of amendments, but those amendments are either so sweeping that they will never get anywhere near and should not get a majority of the House to vote for them, or they tinker on the edges of some critical issues.

There are, to my way of thinking, two critical things that need to be

done; and this rule does not allow them to be done. One is addressing the issue of sunsets.

The chairman bemoans the fact that out in the Nation so many people have such a misunderstanding of what the PATRIOT Act does or does not do. He may feel it is because of the bad motives of the people who talk about it. I would suggest it comes from this fundamental conflict between our desire for enhanced security and our love and commitment for continued liberty.

So people read about detentions of people without being indicted or without any deportation proceedings against them and wonder what is going on; and he is right, many of the things we have read about have nothing whatsoever to do with the PATRIOT Act. But part of the reason why the chairman can say we had such rigorous oversight, 10 hearings on this subject, continued letters from the chair and the ranking member pushing for information from the Justice Department, is because of the sunsets.

The failure of the rule to make the sunsets in order is a tremendous failure, not that all of them need to be reenacted, but on key sections at a time that is relevant for what the American people want, which is within the next 4 or 5 years there should be a chance to have those provisions sunsetted.

I want to get to just as fundamental an issue, to my way of thinking and that is the issue of the standards for secret orders from FISA courts that allow our law enforcement agencies to pursue terrorist investigations and break up terrorist cells.

Prior to the PATRIOT Act, and even under the SAFE Act, we have a standard which does not give law enforcement enough tools to gather the information through a carefully developed investigation to find out who the future terrorists are, who the people who might be planning terrorist attacks are.

Under the existing law, you have much too broad a standard. You are allowing orders that are not based on criminal information to be issued by FISA courts, required to be issued by FISA courts, allowing any kind of tangible records to be seized, whether or not they are pertaining to a specific person, if it is connected with, or, in the case of the base bill here, relevant to a terrorist investigation.

An amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and I proposed the Committee on Rules did not allow to come into the rule which would have provided the proper balance. It would have dealt with the limitations that are imposed on law enforcement by too restrictive a standard and, at the same time, clarify that even if it has not yet been misused, it is wrong to provide such a broad standard that records can be swept up that have no connection whatsoever with any relevant target of any terrorist investigation.

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary this morning unanimously passed the standard that we see on this chart. The standard says, if the target of the FISA order or the national security letter is an agent of a foreign power or is in contact with or known to an agent of a foreign power, a definition which deals with all the hypotheticals provided by my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), in criticizing the SAFE Act and pre-PATRIOT Act standard, it provides every hypothetical created that I have heard about with the ability to be pursued under FISA orders. Why were we not allowed to vote on this? Why would the Senate Committee on the Judiciary unanimously pass that sensible correction in the PATRIOT Act and this body not be even allowed to debate and vote on it?

For these reasons, I am going to be forced to vote ``no'' on this bill for the lack of opportunity to sunset key provisions like the lone-wolf provision, like the issue of national security letters to provide a forcing mechanism for oversight and for our failure to deal with the overly broad standard in the existing law and in the base bill. I hope when it comes back from the conference committee, that we will have a more balanced product that I will be able to support.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I think underlying the gentleman from Michigan's question, is this not about the difference between the FBI and law enforcement using a national security letter to ask a bank to give it the financial records of all of its customers versus asking the bank to give it the financial records of the specific individuals it suspects might be involved or that it is interested in? I think that is at the heart of the question of the standard. That is why relevance to a terrorist investigation is not an adequate standard. You want the focus on something specific, rather than all of the bank's records of everybody who uses that bank. You want the people who might have had contact with the terrorist or suspected terrorist.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, that requires the bank, not the customers who had nothing to do with anything, to make the challenge.

The bank is, not the customers of the bank.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified by the modification at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Basically, this is an amendment supported, I am happy to say, by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that simply does one thing: It requires the Attorney General to report to Congress once a year on a survey that it seeks from other agencies of the Federal Government surveying data-mining technologies in use or in development at federal departments and agencies. The modification that I seek simply makes clear that, first of all, any classified information will be submitted in a classified annex and, secondly, that any information regarding data-mining technologies that deals with the sources, intelligence sources and methods, will be available only in the annex to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; in other words, that to the extent this survey produces anything which should either be classified or deals with sources and methods, the traditional procedures for where that material goes will be maintained.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I have indicated to the body what my intention was, and it will be my intention and one to be part of the legislative history that we will ensure that, before this bill becomes law, information about sources and methods go just where they have always gone. The Committee on Armed Services does not get this information. Only the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence gets this information. The gentleman was wrong in his characterization.

Secondly, this imposes absolutely no burden on any other agency of government other than the Attorney General and the Justice Department. It lays out information that the Attorney General should seek from other agencies. It imposes no obligation on those agencies to respond. It does not encumber any sources or funds they do not want to spend, and it simply asks the Attorney General to then compile

whatever information those agencies have chosen to provide to the Attorney General into a report which will be sent public in the case of information which is not sensitive and classified in an annex classified where it does involve such information.

There is not one word in this bill that imposes a single mandate on any other federal agency. The only obligation on the Attorney General is to seek this information from the other agencies. There are no sanctions. There are no mandates. There is no compulsion.

The reason, I would suggest to this body, that we will hear some people raising concerns is because the Justice Department has misrepresented the obligations of both it and other agencies under this amendment.

The need for this amendment is that we have wasted millions and millions of dollars on implementing database-mining activities which, when they became public, produced such an outrage they were canceled. We are trying to get an early start, show the people that these efforts are protected, that they are targeted at sensitive information.

We could have introduced a bill or offered an amendment to ban data mining. We did not do that. There is legislation to do that. We do not want to tie the hands of our security agencies in gathering this information. We simply want to provide a logical mechanism to gather the information so that the American people can feel more comfortable that what is being done is protected.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of yielding to my next speaker, I just want to remind the body it is one report, once a year, with anything that would tip off anybody about anything that we would not want to happen to be in a classified form, even in the amendment form without modification.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The cynicism sometimes stuns me. I offered an amendment to ensure that sources and methods only go to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and a member of the Committee on Armed Services objects, and then the chairman says we are not protecting sources and methods so he has to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.