Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 5690, introduced by Chairman Howard Berman. I applaud Mr. Berman and Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for coming together as they have to end the absurdity that now exists with respect to South African government officials who want to visit the

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

My amendment is a simple one. It allows the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to use a secondary authentication system to verify the identity of individuals who are applying for transportation worker identification credentials when those individuals have failed in their biometric verification due to the quality of their fingerprints.

Since this is the Department of Homeland Security, these credentials are called TWICs. And it is necessary currently, in the bill and under law, to have your fingerprints taken to enroll to get this TWIC. However, and this is very interesting, Stanford University has done the research. It turns out that about 5 percent of the population is unable to have their fingerprints taken. Now the reasons for this can be many; genetics, age, there is an ethnicity component, illness, hard labor. And when that happens, what that means is that individuals who would otherwise need the card will not be able to get the card unless this amendment is adopted.

I'll give you an example of an individual who has been impacted. George Thomas of Houston, Texas. Mr. Thomas is 85 years old and he is the president of Higman Marine Services. Higman Marine has been in the inland towing business since 1917. When Mr. Thomas applied for his TWIC card, he was told that his skin was too thin to have his fingerprints read and to come back in a couple of months to apply again. Well, what happens to Mr. Thomas, his company, and all his employees? What happens to his business without the president able to comply with TWIC requirements through no fault of his own?

The TWIC procedure already requires TSA to send pertinent parts of the enrollment record to the FBI as well as within the Department of Homeland Security so that appropriate terrorist threat, criminal history and immigration checks can be performed. This amendment authorizes the Secretary of DHS to perform a secondary check if a person's prints cannot be read instead of telling them to come back in a couple of months. This would mean an additional check of the name, but in the future, when the technology has been accepted for broad use, it could also include the use of other biometrics, such as iris, facial or retina scans, voice recognition and the like. It merely gives discretion to the Secretary to either do the name check, or use alternative biometrics.

The point of this amendment is to enhance security, but also to allow workers who are applying for TWIC to avoid being rejected unfairly.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment as well as the underlying bill. I would like to thank the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, and also Mr. Cummings for their wonderful work on this bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this point, I would also like to thank Chairman Thompson of the Homeland Security Committee for his hard work on this bill.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Chairman, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Before I yield back, let me just note that I have no motivation to weaken the security of the----

Madam Chairman, I will just note there is not much of a closing. We are in agreement on this amendment. I appreciate the support. I look forward to working further on this.

Certainly, we don't want to weaken our security, but we don't want hardworking people who just can't get their fingerprints taken to be put out of a job. So we are of one mind on this. I thank the committee, all the Members.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to act swiftly to pass a strengthened and seamless extension of the Research and Development Tax Credit.

The R&D tax credit expired at the end of last year, creating an unacceptable degree of uncertainty for our country's most innovative industries.

An investment in R&D is an investment in the U.S. economy. In 2003, for example, U.S. companies invested $140.1 billion in domestic research and development.

As we have seen in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, that investment has strengthened our economy and led to remarkable technological advancements.

At a time when our economy is shedding jobs, a swift extension of the R&D tax credit makes abundant sense. More than 90% of the benefits of the credit are attributable to salaries of workers performing U.S.- based research.

A permanent extension of the credit would be ideal. Since its inception in 1981, the R&D tax credit has been extended 12 times for periods ranging from 5 years to 6 months.

Given the long time horizon for returns on R&D investments, this ad hoc and piecemeal approach to extending the credit is problematic.

Nonetheless, the prospect of the credit lapsing altogether is even more problematic. Given the intense global competition faced by our most innovative industries, we cannot cede any more ground to those countries that provide expansive, permanent R&D incentives to lure away R&D investments.

Swift action on the R&D tax credit is critical to innovation centers like the Silicon Valley and to the overall health of the U.S. economy.

We must act quickly and decisively to maintain and advance America's place as a leader in innovation.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4056) to establish an awards mechanism to honor Federal law enforcement officers injured in the line of duty, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

It is my pleasure to rise in strong support of H.R. 4056, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Congressional Badge of Bravery Act of 2008.

This measure establishes a formal process by which Congress will be able to recognize acts of bravery by men and women in Federal law enforcement who become injured in the course of their duties.

Each year, approximately 150 Federal law enforcement officers are injured in the line of duty. Although more than 70 Federal agencies employ law enforcement officers, only two of these agencies have an awards mechanism to recognize officers who are injured in the line of duty.

This bill addresses a long overdue need to establish a process for congressional recognition of the dangers these officers face for our safety. It would authorize a Member of Congress or the Attorney General to present in the name of Congress a Congressional Badge of Bravery to an officer who is cited by the Attorney General based on the recommendation of a board established by this measure.

Madam Speaker, the men and women in Federal law enforcement, like many hardworking public servants, must often work long and sometimes irregular hours. Unlike other public servants, however, Federal law enforcement officers undertake their responsibilities with full knowledge that they are at risk of severe injury, or worse.

This bill will now accord these brave men and women formal congressional recognition, an honor that is so very much deserved. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth) for his leadership on this important legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to yield to the author of this legislation, Mr. Ellsworth, who represents his district in Indiana with distinction, but also represented the district as their sheriff for many years, and it is therefore very appropriate that I yield to him 5 minutes.

I would just urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. It has bipartisan support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1053) supporting the mission and goals of National Crime Victims' Rights week in order to increase public awareness of the rights, needs, and concerns of victims and survivors of crime in the United States.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the National Center for Victims of Crime reports that approximately 23 million Americans are victimized by crime each year. Of these, more than 5 million are victims of violent crime.

Victims of crime can suffer from a broad range of adverse effects, ranging from the physical to the psychological. Some experience financial distress resulting from a disruption in employment.

Unfortunately, some of the most vulnerable of our society are also among those who are most commonly the victims of crime. People of color suffer disproportionately from violent crime. The poor and uneducated are often the target of financial schemes. And, sadly, children are victimized more than any other group.

A just society demands that we always bear in mind the suffering that crime victims endure and work to reduce the incidence of the crime that causes that suffering.

This bill will increase public awareness about the effects of crime on its victims and their families as well as our communities.

As part of today's debate, I would also like to point out that the Office for Victims of Crime offers a full array of assistance help for crime victims. By supporting this office and its programs on an ongoing basis we can help ensure that victims are afforded their legal rights and the necessary assistance to overcome the effects of being victimized by crime.

I encourage my colleagues to support H. Res. 1053.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to recognize my colleague from California, the author of this bill, Congressman Jim Costa, for 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman from Ohio has additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It's bipartisan. It's important.

I just recalled, as I was listening to both Mr. Poe and Mr. Costa taking the lead and I thank them both for that, my more than 10 years on the Victim Witness Assistance Board, when I was in local government, and the tremendous need there is for people who have been victims and then who are also witnesses to receive the assistance from society that they need so much.

So I appreciate the efforts of both gentlemen and our colleagues who are in this caucus and urge support.

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

I thank Mr. Conyers, Mr. Smith, and Mr. King.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be the author of H.R. 5570, the Religious Worker Visa Extension Act of 2008.

Immigrant religious workers add vitality and depth to communities of faith throughout America. They provide much-needed help to people of all faiths. America is a great and diverse land. Our religious institutions, our churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, cathedrals, face daunting challenges today. They must reach out to more people from more countries and cultures than ever before. Religious workers serve these communities well and ably to the benefit of their communities and their many faiths. I have no doubt that religious communities in America will continue to have the need to find devoted people of faith to help them meet the needs of their members.

In Jewish community schools across the country, highly skilled religious instructors from Israel plant the fertile seeds of faith in our children. Mormon missionaries from around the world come to the U.S. to serve their community and deepen their faith. In Catholic dioceses around America, nuns from around the world provide needed community services and teach our children well. Muslim imams call their communities together to promote their faiths and a greater understanding of their beliefs. Protestant churches of every denomination benefit from the touches of religious workers in their diverse communities.

The call to faithful service in the United States will continue to grow as this Nation becomes more diverse. Because of this growing need, I introduced this bill. It follows my efforts in years past from the 105th and 106th Congress to permanently reauthorize the special immigrant nonminister religious worker visa program. I called those bills the Mother Theresa Worker Act in honor of her great service which inspired us and benefited the world.

I believed then as I believe now, that the special immigrant nonminister religious worker visa program represents an important and even critical piece of our immigration laws and that it should, like other religious worker programs, not sunset.

After four successive reauthorizations of this program in 1994, 1997, 2000 and most recently in 2003, each without a single substantive change in the program, I again introduced a bill to permanently reauthorize the program. However, as part of the process of putting the bill through the regular order and subjecting it to the robust discussion inherent in the legislative process, I offered an amendment worked out with the minority in the subcommittee to significantly reduce the potential for fraud in the program.

As mentioned by the chairman of the full committee, it requires DHS to issue its regulations. It limits the reauthorization to 15 months. If the department fails to issue regulations, it requires the Inspector General to issue a report on the effectiveness of the regulations. And rather than the permanent extension, as I had sought, Mr. Smith and I worked out a compromise of 7 years of the regulations that are authored.

Finally, after additional discussion with the minority over the last several days, we have agreed that the Inspector General's report should also contain an analysis of a random sample of nonminister special immigrant cases to determine whether they are still employed by the religious organization that petitioned for them, and if not, the reasons for their departure from such employment. I am confident that these steps will make the issue and concern of fraud unnecessary because we will eliminate that problem.

I had an exit interview, if you will, with the director of the USCIS last week. Dr. Emilio Gonzalez is going back to his family in Florida. And he told me that with the initiation of site visits, which is something that should have happened long ago, the actual number of applications for this visa has dropped significantly, which is an interesting phenomenon.

So I think that we are well underway in eliminating any problems with the program so that our country can enjoy the richness that religious workers bring to our communities.

I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Madam Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments. I think it is important to note that the various analyses of this program back in the nineties and early in this century actually preceded reauthorization when Republicans were in the majority. We had a reauthorization with no changes at all in 1994, 1997, 2000 and 2003. So this is the first time we have actually had changes in the bill to address the issue of fraud, and I think is it is appropriate we do so. We want to welcome religious workers to our country, but we don't want to be scammed. So I think we have done the balance on this.

I would note that I believe, as does the ranking member, that the Catholics probably do have a low rate of fraud, but there is no way to know that, because the sample of 220 was so small that there was no way to pull out any one denomination as being more problematic than another.

I would ask unanimous consent that the e-mail from the USCIS making that point to me be included in the Record.

Madam Speaker, I would note also that, anecdotally, the non-affiliated may in fact be part of the issue, and

here is the problem that may have happened.

If there is no site visit to the petitioning church, you don't know whether it is a phony post office box or whether it is St. Joseph's Cathedral in downtown San Jose. So now that the Department of Homeland Security has done site inspections, anybody can see the beautiful St. Joseph's in downtown San Jose, and you can also find out there is something funny here because there is not a real church or it is just a post office box. And I think that is what has led to the dramatic decline in some of these more problematic applications.

I would note also, and I look forward to talking to the ranking member about his reciprocity bill, but let me just express a caution. Right now, Russia will not allow our evangelicals into their country to proselytize. I think that is the wrong thing for the Russian government to do. I think it denies the Russian people the opportunity to be exposed to those who believe that Christ is their personal saviour. But I don't think we ought to deny the Russian Orthodox believers in California the opportunity to receive assistance from Russian Orthodox religious workers simply because the Russian government has hostility towards religion and our government does not have hostility towards religion.

So I look forward to discussing this further with the ranking member, but I would want to add that cautionary.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5036) to direct the Administrator of General Services to reimburse certain jurisdictions for the costs of obtaining paper ballot voting systems for the general elections for Federal office to be held in November 2008, to reimburse jurisdictions for the costs incurred in conducting audits or hand counting of the results of the general elections for Federal office to be held in November 2008, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5036 and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5036, the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act 2008, is a bill that provides State and local governments the opportunity to have safe, secure and auditable elections in this, the election, year.

I commend Congressman Holt and his bipartisan cosponsors for their continued dedication to the issue of election reform.

This bill recognizes that 2008 is quickly approaching and options must be provided to ensure the integrity of the vote. Our election process must be open and transparent to ensure public confidence. We are now 8 months from the general election and cannot place State and local governments in a position to require change. Therefore, the bill is 100 percent optional.

State and local governments can choose which provisions they can successfully implement. Opting in entitles the State or jurisdiction to reimbursement. In committee, several changes were made to this bill through bipartisan cooperation, and I want to thank Mr. Ehlers for his support during the committee markup. Changes were also made to meet the concerns of disability groups, as well as State and local government.

H.R. 5036, as amended, reimburses jurisdictions for retrofitting paperless touch-screen voting machines, or DREs, with systems that produce a voter verifiable paper record, allows for reimbursements for jurisdictions to obtain backup paper ballots in the event of failure of electronic voting systems and authorizes reimbursement for jurisdictions which conduct a manual audit of a Federal and any State and local election in November, 2008, in no less than 2 percent of the precincts.

During the markup, all the amendments offered by the Republicans were accepted by voice vote, and those four amendments were to allow for audits to commence within 48 hours after States or relevant jurisdictions involved announced the unofficial vote count. It requires no hand count to commence until at least 8 hours after the polls close and requires the ballots to be in a secured location until the hand count commences, and ensures that the hand-counting teams, when conducting a hand count of the election results, have equal representation from both political parties of the candidates who received the two greatest numbers of aggregate votes cast, and requires that after the hand count is complete the ballots be run through a tabulating machine or scanner for verification of the tally, if such a machine or scanner is available.

Having a voter verified paper trail with an automatic routine audit will go a long way to increase voter confidence and deter fraud.

Post-election audits are an essential tool to increase voter confidence in the election process. While the bill authorizes such sums as necessary, the CBO has come back to us with a score of $685 million, about what we expected, and a sum that was in the original Holt bill.

The CBO score, however, anticipates the participation of everyone in this bill. I think it is highly unlikely that every jurisdiction will participate in every aspect of the bill, since they have the opportunity to do nothing or to pick and choose portions of the bill. It is clear that the actual score or total would be less.

I would note that we are spending over $10 billion a month in Iraq and that we have spent a total of $1.32 billion on democracy-building programs in Afghanistan and Iraq. The CBO figure is certainly less than that. It seems to me, if we can't protect our elections at home, really, how are we supposed to be a model of democracy without safe and secure and auditable elections.

The country could end up revisiting the contentious and mistrusted count

of 2000 and, even more recently, in the contested election of District 13 where people could not verify votes through an actual written ballot.

The bill reported out of committee makes the changes requested by the minority to the legislation but keeps the core purpose of the bill, providing a voter verifiable paper and auditable paper trail.

If this bill is enacted promptly, jurisdiction should have adequate time to purchase and implement the voting system upgrades and the other provisions of this bill and provide voter confidence in the integrity of the 2008 election.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this option bill, this bipartisan effort.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the author of the bill, Congressman Rush Holt from New Jersey, who has been tremendously diligent in pursuing these reform measures. Really, without his persistence, we would not be here today.

I would recognize him for 5 minutes.

I thank the gentleman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Davis of Virginia is a principal cosponsor and I don't see him here, so I will yield to Mr. Holt for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear that the Holt bill is optional for jurisdictions. No one is required to opt in, so no one would be rushed unless they wanted and felt they could take advantage of this legislation. I would note also that several States have undergone very rapid conversion. I would note that Governor Crist from Florida was a witness before the Election Subcommittee in House Administration, and he had the entire State of Florida switch from the electronic machines to optical scan in really a matter of months. This is a matter of intention if you want to do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that this has not been a hurried effort. In fact, we reported out of the House Administration Committee the original Holt bill before last Easter, Easter of 2007, and have been working with interested parties and across the aisle since that time.

It's worth noting that these changes can happen responsibly and also quickly. For example, in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, they're going to switch from DREs to optical scan in 7 weeks, before this primary.

And I would note that the legislature in Iowa has voted, I understand the vote was nearly unanimous, to transition from DREs to optical scan, and that's going to be done before this November election. So I think that this measure would help cities and counties who want to take those responsible steps.

I would yield to the author of the legislation, Mr. Holt, an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments. In the last several years, the United States has spent at least $240 million to make sure that democratic elections in other countries met the same standards that we're hoping elections will be held to here. And so, obviously, every dollar that we have is precious tax money, but I would hope that we would be at least as interested in protecting the integrity of the elections in America as we are in protecting the integrity of the elections in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the like.

Secondly, I was not a member of the House Administration Committee when Mr. Mica, the gentleman from Florida, was. But I was on the Florida 13 Task Force, and we reached a conclusion. It was unanimous and it was bipartisan, and I don't second-guess them. We had GAO go in and they gave us a report, and we accepted that report. But had there been a paper trail we wouldn't have had to have the GAO go in and examine these machines.

And I would finally note that the gentleman is right. If you can mess it up, it will be messed up. But at least, with a paper ballot, you can discern intent. And if somebody circles the name instead of fills it in, and there is a recount, you can see what a voter meant to do. You cannot see that with an electronic machine.

So with that, and I understand the points being made, but I would hope that we can come together and support this bipartisan bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We don't have additional speakers. I wonder if the gentleman has additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we pass this important legislation today.

I will confess that I am disappointed that the ranking member is not today in support of this measure. We, on the majority side, accepted every amendment offered by Republicans in the committee mark-up on this bill, and I had hoped and expected that we would be able to continue to work together and support this measure on the floor.

We reported the original Holt bill out of the committee over 1 year ago, and in that time, between now and then, we have worked with Secretaries of State, the National Association of Counties, disability rights groups, voting rights groups, civil rights groups, to try and get a measure that could garner broad support across the country. And I believe that we have that measure before us today.

I will say that the White House issuing an SAP today, after a year's work, I think, is really bad faith. We have worked very hard, and to come out at the last minute is really very unprofessional.

I'd finally like to say that the dollar amount estimated by the Congressional Budget Office is a worst-case scenario. There's no way that that would be the full amount.

But even if it were, I would ask Members to think of this: Isn't the American democracy worth as much as the Iraqi or the Pakistani democracy?

Aren't we willing to spend as much to make sure that our precious American votes are counted as we are the votes of foreigners in other countries? I would hope that as we consider our responsibility as Members of Congress to our wonderful America and our wonderful country, that the answer to that would be yes and therefore, a ``yes'' on the whole bill.

There have been various quotes made today, but I think back of the second Californian to ever be President of the United States, his phrase was not used about voting, but it was this: Trust but verify. That's what the Holt bill would do. It would trust but verify, and I hope that Members today can come together and support the Holt bill.

I would like to commend once again Congressman Holt for his enormous efforts that brought us here today.

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

Madam Speaker, tonight Allen Ruby will be honored by the University of Santa Clara School of Law. Since the House is in session, I will not be able to participate in this important event. But I do want to note that there is no one more worthy of honor and recognition as a lawyer and as a person than Allen Ruby.

In 1965, after earning his bachelor of arts from Michigan State University in only 3 years, he came west to Stanford Law School. Since graduating from Stanford Law School in 1969 he has practiced criminal and civil law in San Jose. His demonstrated skill and commitment to justice enabled him to be admitted to the Supreme Court Bar in 1993.

I first came to know Allen Ruby when I was a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The county was embroiled as a defendant in long-standing litigation. As the only county supervisor who was also an attorney, it fell to me to recommend to my colleagues the best lawyer in town to represent the county's interest. Allen Ruby was the best. To participate with Allen Ruby in preparation of the county's case was to watch an attorney of rare talent. He acted with integrity and ingenuity and served the people of Santa Clara County well.

Allen Ruby has represented a who's who of clients not only in Silicon Valley, but around the United States.

One of his most important public interest cases was the government false claims whistle-blower case, United States of America ex rel Henry Boisvert v. FMC Corp. The matter began when Boisvert, an FMC test analyst, found deficiencies in the U.S. Army's Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The all-terrain vehicle was designed to carry troops and equipment through water and on land but it leaked, making it a danger for troops. As a result of his continued reporting of vehicle flaws, Boisvert was terminated from his employment. Allen Ruby was able to prove that the termination by FMC was wrongful after he filed suit under the False Claims Act.

Ruby's zealous representation of Boisvert for the last 5 years of this 14-year lawsuit resulted in an important victory for the public interest as well as the individual whistleblower.

Mr. Ruby's extraordinary ability in trial is also appreciated by his colleagues. Their respect for Mr. Ruby gained him membership in the American Board of Trial Advocates and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. In 1999, the Santa Clara County Trial Lawyers Association named him Trial Lawyer of the Year.

Mr. Ruby's integrity was not just noted by clients and colleagues, the Santa Clara County Superior Court also recognized his expertise and skill by naming him Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Pro Tem, presiding over jury trials and court trials from 1987 to 1991.

Allen Ruby's legal career is impressive and his legal acumen has made him an attorney who has merited the trust of individuals and corporations in the most crucial of times. But the legal acumen that has inspired that trust is built on his values and deep commitment to justice.

His personal sense of responsibility to insuring access to our system of justice has moved him to take action outside of his profession as well. Amidst his landmark cases, he has still made time to serve others in several capacities, including as a Silicon Valley Law Foundation board member.

Allen Ruby is honored and famed as a trial lawyer, but he grew up in a family of modest means. He was blessed by parents who loved and nurtured him and helped him to develop the values that have served him well throughout his life. Between high school and law school Allen Ruby followed in the footsteps of his father and was a wrestler on the Midwestern professional wrestling circuit. He learned many lessons through this experience, many of which have contributed to his success as an attorney. He has stated about the experience, ``I learned how to get beat and not

whine about it, and that was the most valuable lesson I could have learned as a trial lawyer.''

Allen Ruby is not only a spectacular lawyer, he is a valued friend and a respected member of our community in Silicon Valley. I join with Santa Clara Law School in recognizing and honoring him.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the second anniversary of the signing of the Manifesto on Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam. This Manifesto, originally signed by 118 Vietnamese citizens and subsequently signed by thousands of others, has been an inspiration to many who seek to bring democracy and human rights to the citizens of Vietnam. Many signers of this document have been detained and have endured great sacrifice in the name of their cause, and it is with the utmost respect that I rise in their honor.

Madam Speaker, on this, the 81st anniversary of his birth, I would like to join my colleagues in honoring Cesar Chavez, an individual that the late Senator Robert Kennedy called, ``one of the heroic figures of our time.'' I also join the call to pass H. Res. 76, establishing a national holiday in his honor. San Jose, the city I represent in this great House, became the hometown to Cesar and his family beginning in 1939, and since then our community has always had a special place in its heart for Chavez.

A man of extraordinary accomplishments, Chavez continually called attention to the plight of those who, like him, had to struggle to attain their piece of the American dream. In remembering him today, we keep in mind those Americans working every day on farms in California, and around the country, to secure a better future for their family.

An American who heeded his Nation's call to service in World War II, Chavez remained committed to making his country stronger by empowering the least powerful of its citizens. A tireless organizer, he inspired countless individuals to participate in the democratic processes that make this country great.

As Americans, we do well to remember Cesar Chavez today. His calls for economic justice resonate in 2008 just as they did 50 years ago, and his early leadership on environmental issues serves as a reminder that we are all stewards of this land.

Cesar Chavez was, without a doubt, a true American hero. As we honor his life and remember his many achievements, we in this great body must not forget the hard-working Americans he fought for. Though no longer with us, Cesar Chavez's work continues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support of the rule so we can adopt H.R. 3773.

There's been a lot of very misleading and confusing rhetoric about the issue of immunity. The truth is the phone companies have immunity already under current law. It's 18 U.S. Code, section 2511. And let me just read part of it: ``Notwithstanding any other law, providers of communications services are authorized to provide information in two cases: if there's a court order, or if they receive a certification in writing by a person specified in the title or the Attorney General of the United States that says either no warrant or court order is required, all the statutory requirements have been met and the assistance is required.''

The statute says no cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communications if they have received this certification.

I submit the entire text of section 2511 for the Record.

[From Westlaw, 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2511, Effective: Nov. 25, 2002]

United States Code Annotated Currentness

Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Refs & Annos)

Part I. Crimes (Refs & Annos)

Chapter 119. Wire and Electronic Communications Interception

and Interception of Oral Communications (Refs & Annos)

Sec. 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or

electronic communications prohibited

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this

chapter any person who--

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or

procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to

intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any

other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic,

mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral

communication when--

(i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a

signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used

in wire communication; or

(ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or

interferes with the transmission of such communication; or

(iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such

device or any component thereof has been sent through the

mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or

(iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the

premises of any business or other commercial establishment

the operations of which affect interstate or foreign

commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining

information relating to the operations of any business or

other commercial establishment the operations of which affect

interstate or foreign commerce; or

(v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession

of the United States;

(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to

any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or

electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know

that the information was obtained through the interception of

a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of

this subsection;

(d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents

of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or

having reason to know that the information was obtained

through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic

communication in violation of this subsection; or

(e) (i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose,

to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or

electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by

sections 2511(2)(a)(ii), 2511(2)(b)-(c), 2511(2)(e), 2516,

and 2518 of this chapter, (ii) knowing or having reason to

know that the information was obtained through the

interception of such a communication in connection with a

criminal investigation, (iii) having obtained

or received the information in connection with a criminal

investigation, and (iv) with intent to or improperly

obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized

criminal investigation,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be

subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).

(2)(a)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for

an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or

agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication

service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a

wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or

use that communication in the normal course of his employment

while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident

to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the

rights or property of the provider of that service, except

that a provider of wire communication service to the public

shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring

except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or

electronic communication service, their officers, employees,

and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are

authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical

assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire,

oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic

surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its

officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other

specified person, has been provided with--

(A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the

authorizing judge, or

(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in

section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General of the

United States that no warrant or court order is required by

law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that

the specified assistance is required.

setting forth the period of time during which the provision

of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is

authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or

technical assistance required. No provider of wire or

electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent

thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person

shall disclose the existence of any interception or

surveillance or the device used to accomplish the

interception or surveillance with respect to which the person

has been furnished a court order or certification under this

chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process

and then only after prior notification to the Attorney

General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State

or any political subdivision of a State, as may be

appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person

liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. No

cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider

of wire or electronic communication service, its officer,

employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified

person for providing information, facilities, or assistance

in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory

authorization, or certification under this chapter.

(b) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an

officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications

Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in

discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the

Commission in the enforcement of chapter 5 of title 47 of the

United States Code, to intercept a wire or electronic

communication, or oral communication transmitted by radio, or

to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.

(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a

person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral,

or electronic communication, where such person is a party to

the communication or one of the parties to the communication

has given prior consent to such interception.

(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a

person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire,

oral, or electronic communication where such person is a

party to the communication or where one of the parties to the

communication has given prior consent to such interception

unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of

committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or

section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, it

shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of

the United States in the normal course of his official duty

to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101

of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as

authorized by that Act.

(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or

206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act

of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the

United States Government of foreign intelligence information

from international or foreign communications, or foreign

intelligence activities conducted in accordance with

otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign

electronic communications system, utilizing a means other

than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures

in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by

which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of

such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and

electronic communications may be conducted.

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter

121 of this title for any person--

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication

made through an electronic communication system that is

configured so that such electronic communication is readily

accessible to the general public;

(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is

transmitted--

(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or

that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in

distress;

(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense,

private land mobile, or public safety communications system,

including police and fire, readily accessible to the general

public;

(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency

within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or

general mobile radio services; or

(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;

(iii) to engage in any conduct which--

(I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act

of 1934; or

(II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of

the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;

(iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the

transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any

lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment,

to the extent necessary to identify the source of such

interference; or

(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any

radio communication made through a system that utilizes

frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision

or the use of such system, if such communication is not

scrambled or encrypted.

(h) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter--

(i) to use a pen register or a trap and trace device (as

those terms are defined for the purposes of chapter 206

(relating to pen registers and trap and trace devices) of

this title); or

(ii) for a provider of electronic communication service to

record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was

initiated or completed in order to protect such provider,

another provider furnishing service toward the completion of

the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that

service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of such

service.

(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a

person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or

electronic communications of a computer trespasser

transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer, if--

(I) the owner or operator of the protected computer

authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser's

communications on the protected computer;

(II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully

engaged in an investigation;

(III) the person acting under color of law has reasonable

grounds to believe that the contents of the computer

trespasser's communications will be relevant to the

investigation; and

(IV) such interception does not acquire communications

other than those transmitted to or from the computer

trespasser.

(3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this

subsection, a person or entity providing an electronic

communication service to the public shall not intentionally

divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to

such person or entity, or an agent thereof) while in

transmission on that service to any person or entity other

than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication

or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.

(b) A person or entity providing electronic communication

service to the public may divulge the contents of any such

communication--

(i) as otherwise authorized in section 2511(2)(a) or 2517

of this title;

(ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or any

addressee or intended recipient of such communication;

(iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose

facilities are used, to forward such communication to its

destination; or

(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service

provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a

crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement

agency.

(4)( a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this

subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection

(1) of this section shall be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) Conduct otherwise an offense under this subsection that

consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite

transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is

transmitted--

(i) to a broadcasting station for purposes of

retransmission to the general public; or

(ii) as an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to

facilities open to the public, but not including data

transmissions or telephone calls,

is not an offense under this subsection unless the conduct is

for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage

or private financial gain.

[(c) Redesignated (b)]

(5)(a)(i) If the communication is--

(A) a private satellite video communication that is not

scrambled or encrypted and

the conduct in violation of this chapter is the private

viewing of that communication and is not for a tortious or

illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect

commercial advantage or private commercial gain; or

(B) a radio communication that is transmitted on

frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules

of the Federal Communications Commission that is not

scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this

chapter is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for

purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or

private commercial gain,

then the person who engages in such conduct shall be subject

to suit by the Federal Government in a court of competent

jurisdiction.

(ii) In an action under this subsection--

(A) if the violation of this chapter is a first offense for

the person under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) and such

person has not been found liable in a civil action under

section 2520 of this title, the Federal Government shall be

entitled to appropriate injunctive relief; and

(B) if the violation of this chapter is a second or

subsequent offense under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) or

such person has been found liable in any prior civil action

under section 2520, the person shall be subject to a

mandatory $500 civil fine.

(b) The court may use any means within its authority to

enforce an injunction issued under paragraph (ii)(A), and

shall impose a civil fine of not less than $500 for each

violation of such an injunction.

credit(s)

(Added Pub. L. 90-351, Title III, Sec. 802, June 19, 1968,

82 Stat. 213, and amended Pub. L. 91-358, Title II,

Sec. 211(a), July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 654; Pub. L. 95-511,

Title II, Sec. 201(a) to (c), Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1796,

1797; Pub. L. 98-549, Sec. 6(b)(2), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat.

2804; Pub. L. 99-508, Title I, Sec. 101(b), (c)(l), (5), (6),

(d), (t), 102, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1849 to 1853; Pub. L.

103-322, Title XXXII, Sec. 320901, Title XXXIII,

Sec. 330016(1)(f)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2123, 2147;

Pub. L. 103-414, Title II, Sec. 202(b), 204, 205, Oct. 25,

1994, 108 Stat. 4290, 4291; Pub. L. 104-294, Title VI,

Sec. 604(b)(42), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3509; Pub. L. 107-

56, Title II, Sec. Sec. 204, 217(2), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat.

281, 291; Pub. L. 107-296, Title II, Sec. 225(h)(2), Nov. 25,

2002, 116 Stat. 2158.)

Current through P.L. 110-195 (excluding P.L. 110-181)

approved 3-12-08

Simply put, the phone companies have immunity. The only issue is, do they get their day in court to tell a judge that they have immunity? This bill allows for that.

I think the phone companies, like any other party, have a right to assert their defenses and be heard by a judge and have their case be heard. This bill provides for that.

Now, why wouldn't the Bush administration be supportive?

I think the administration is more concerned about their liability than the phone companies.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to discharge the Committee on House Administration from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 306, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I send a concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 313, to the desk and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would just note that, as the gentleman has mentioned, it is important that we honor the 5 years of service and sacrifice of our troops and their families in the war in Iraq and remember our troops serving in Afghanistan and throughout the world.

I would note that Ranking Member Ehlers is a cosponsor of this resolution, and both conflicts are still ongoing. Our troops' efforts have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Their sacrifice and dedication to their country must be honored, as well as the sacrifice and dedication of American troops stationed at home and around the world. And I am pleased that we will have this important recognition in the people's House, in the rotunda.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks in the Record on the two concurrent resolutions just considered.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor those killed during the Khojaly Massacre on the 16th anniversary of that terrible event. On February 26, 1992, 613 Azerbaijanis lost their lives. I ask that this Congress remember those who were killed that tragic day.