ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

Chinese Immig. Daily



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
©1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:



< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

[Congressional Record: September 26, 2002 (House)]
[Page H6743-H6751]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr26se02-89]                         



 
  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2215, 21ST CENTURY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
                    APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 552, I 
call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2215) to authorize 
appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal year 2002, and 
for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Pursuant to the rule, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 25, 2002, at page H6586.)

                              {time}  1530

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each 
will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to include extraneous material on the conference 
report on H.R. 2215 currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a lengthy statement which I plan on putting in 
the

[[Page H6744]]

Record, as it is important to this conference report. I know that the 
Members wish to make plans so that they can get out of here before the 
last plane leaves, and I would hope that everybody who seeks time will 
speed it up so that the Members will be accommodated.
  This conference report represents the first Department of Justice 
authorization that will be signed into law since 1979. The Department 
has gone for 23 years without an authorization. This legislation will 
help the Congress to do better oversight over the Department of Justice 
and will allow the Department of Justice to do better oversight over 
itself through improvements in the Inspector General's Office.
  There are a number of additional judgeships that have been created, 
largely in the southwestern part of the country, to handle cases that 
arise from problems along the border. There is an improvement in how 
the Department administers its grant programs through the Office of 
Justice programs; and I think probably most importantly, the 
improvements in the juvenile justice system at the Federal level, 
jointly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary and 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, at long last, will be 
finding its way into law.
  All of the conferees signed this legislation. It has significant 
bipartisan support. I would commend it to the Members' favorable vote.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last two decades, there have been several 
unsuccessful attempts by the Committees on the Judiciary of both Houses 
of Congress to authorize the Department of Justice. If enacted, H.R. 
2215 represents the first such authorization of the Department in 
nearly a quarter century. It reflects the broad bipartisan support of 
both Houses, and was signed by all of those appointed to the 
Conference. While some might argue that congressional authorization of 
federal departments within its jurisdiction is a mere formality, the 
authorization of executive agencies fulfills Congress' fundamental 
constitutional obligation to maintain an active and continuing role in 
organizing the priorities and overseeing the operation of the executive 
branch. This process also ensures that the authorizing committees' 
institutional knowledge about the federal agencies they oversee can be 
imparted in the course of regulation reauthorization.
  The Department of Justice is one of the most important agencies in 
the Federal Government and the world's premier law enforcement 
organization. With an annual budget exceeding 20 billion dollars and a 
workforce of over 100,000 employees, the Department of Justice is an 
institution whose mission and values reflect the American people's 
staunch commitment to fairness and justice.
  The importance of the Department of Justice has only increased since 
the tragic events of September 11th, 2001. Last year, I was pleased to 
introduce and lead congressional passage of the PATRIOT Act, which has 
strengthened America's security by providing law enforcement with a 
range of tools to fight and win the war against terrorism.
  As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have continued to help 
provide the Department with the legislative resources to carry out its 
crucial mandate. At the same time, I have worked to ensure that the 
Department's structure, management, and priorities are tailored to best 
promote the purposes for which it was established.
  The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization 
Act advances this important goal. The title of this measure reflects 
its broad and ambitious sweep: to focus the priorities of the 
Department to tackle the challenges of the 21st century. At the same 
time, its title alone does not fully capture the several individual 
legislative initiatives contained in its text. Many of these 
initiatives were reported by the House Judiciary Committee and passed 
the House of Representatives, only to be diverted from the President's 
desk by the delay and inaction of the other body.
  H.R. 2215 fully authorizes the appropriations requested by the 
President for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. It strengthens oversight of 
the Department of Justice by bolstering the authority of the 
Department's Inspector General. It also mandates that one senior 
official in the Inspector General's office be dedicated to the 
oversight of the FBI. It also requires the Inspector General to submit 
an FBI oversight plan to Congress within 30 days of enactment.
  It also directs the Department to submit a report detailing the 
operation of the Office of Justice programs, requires the submission of 
information concerning litigation activities at the Department, and 
protects civil liberties by requiring the submission of a report on the 
Department's use of the electronic surveillance system formerly known 
as ``Project Carnivore.''
  H.R. 2215 strengthens the statutory authority of the Attorney General 
to conduct his official responsibilities, enhances the administration 
of justice by incorporating long-needed judicial improvements and 
strengthens judicial disciplinary procedures. It also creates 
additional judgeships to address the chronic overburdening of America's 
federal courts, particularly in border states such as Texas, 
California, and New Mexico, as well as Florida, Nevada, and Alabama.
  H.R. 2215 also ensures effective market competition by making 
important improvements to federal antitrust statues, and establishes a 
Commission to review the adequacy of existing antitrust laws. It 
promotes America's economic competitiveness by strengthening 
protections for intellectual property, modernizing the application 
process at the Patent and Trademark Office, and ensuring that holders 
of U.S. trademarks are accorded the full protection of international 
law.
  In addition, H.R. 2215 strengthens the integrity of the criminal 
justice system in several ways. It increases penalties for those who 
tamper with federal witnesse4s or harm federal judges and law 
enforcement personnel, authorizes danger pay for federal agents in 
harm's way overseas, and contains important provisions to reduce 
illegal drug use. The Report also makes important refinements to 
address INS administrative processing delays faced by legal immigrants.
  Of critical importance, this legislation contains a sweeping and 
ambitious program to protect at-risk kids. It provides continued 
support for Boys and Girls Clubs, enhances juvenile criminal 
accountability, and provides states with block grants to curb youth 
crime. It represents comprehensive bipartisan legislation the House 
Committees on Judiciary and Education and Workforce have been working 
on for several years, and I am proud of its inclusion in the Conference 
Report. Finally, this bill promotes continued support for federal, 
state, and local coordination of preparedness against terrorist 
attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the American people will not have to 
wait another 23 years for this body to again reauthorize the Department 
of Justice. Rather, I hope that passage of H.R. 2215 will lead to a 
period of reinvigorated congressional oversight of the executive 
branch. Working in concert to identify solutions to the growing 
challenges faced by federal law enforcement, Congress and The 
Administration will better provide for the safety and security of 
American people. H.R. 2215 makes a critical, long-overdue step in this 
direction, and I urge your support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), who has 
been very helpful in putting this bipartisan package together.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I applaud the bipartisan leadership for their tireless work 
in bringing this bill to the floor today.
  In particular, I am very appreciative that one of my bills, the Law 
Enforcement Tribute Act, has been included in the reauthorization 
conference report. The Law Enforcement Tribute Act authorizes funding 
for grants to States and localities to aid in honoring those men and 
women of the United States who were killed or disabled while serving as 
law enforcement or public safety officers.
  To ensure this funding would allow for the development of many 
tributes around the country, there is a limit that no award may be 
greater than $150,000; and the bill further requires a match by the 
State or locality requesting the funding. The bill authorizes $3 
million a year for 5 years to be administered through the Department of 
Justice and would provide enough funding for 20 projects each year.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain briefly why this bill is so 
important. In one of the communities I represent alone, Glendale, 
California, four police officers and one sheriff's deputy have been 
killed in the line of duty. Many others have suffered injuries and 
illnesses that have contributed to early deaths. The ultimate sacrifice 
they have made deserves this recognition.
  One of those fallen heroes was Charles Lazzaretto, a Glendale police 
officer killed in the line of duty only 4 years ago. Another involves 
Janice Starnes of Martinsville, Indiana, whose husband, Dan, was killed 
in the line of duty in July of 2001, just months after they celebrated 
their 25th anniversary. Earlier this year, Janice wrote a check for 
$100 to start a memorial for her husband and two other officers also 
killed in the line of duty. In a letter that we received from her, she 
writes:

[[Page H6745]]

``He was the best friend to our sons. Dan paid the ultimate sacrifice. 
He has always been my hero, and now others can be honored by this 
memorial. I want to live long enough to see this memorial completed.''
  Well, so do all of us in the Congress of the United States.
  I want to thank the original cosponsor, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis); our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith); and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member 
of the subcommittee, for their work; and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the committee; and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee, 
for all of their assistance. To the many organizations of law 
enforcement who have supported it, I thank them; and I urge the support 
of my colleagues.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This conference report contains intellectual property provisions 
which are very significant, such as PTO reauthorization; the patent 
reexamination reform proposal; intellectual property technical 
amendments; the TEACH Act, regarding the distance education program; 
and the Madrid protocol implementation concerning the international 
registration of trademarks.
  Our subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Speaker, has 
worked a long time on these matters, and in the case of the Madrid 
protocol for 8 years. This is much-needed reform that will benefit the 
intellectual property owners of the intellectual property community, 
and the American public as well.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), our chairman; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), our ranking member; and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their efforts to 
pass the first DOJ authorization bill in 2 decades. I have enjoyed 
working with them as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and as 
a member of the conference committee to bring this legislation to the 
floor.
  This is an excellent piece of legislation that deals with a large 
number of important issues. I would like to focus on two of them today.
  I am very pleased that we were able to create a permanent Violence 
Against Women Office and make the director of that office a Senate-
confirmed appointee. These provisions will strengthen the existing 
office, enhancing the Department of Justice's capacity to address the 
continuing problems of domestic violence and sexual assault.
  Domestic violence and sexual assault are still scourges on our 
Nation. The statistics are chilling. Nearly one in three women will 
experience either domestic violence or a sexual assault in her 
lifetime. These horrible crimes damage lives and tear families apart. 
The Violence Against Women Act is a proven part of the solution to 
these problems, and a permanent office with a strong director will help 
us continue to move forward to end this problem forever.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my 
colleague, for introducing the original legislation; and I also want to 
appreciate the work of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and 
the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), and also appreciate the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, for their 
efforts to move this issue forward. I thank the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for the 
work that he did to make sure that we found appropriate legislative 
language that meets the great need for a strong Violence Against Women 
Office.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill also includes an important, although somewhat 
obscure, provision that will help promote education. The bill includes 
the Technology Education and Copyright Harmonization Act, also known as 
the TEACH Act. The TEACH Act extends the current exemption of 
educational use of copyrighted materials to distance learning. This 
will allow our schools, colleges, and universities to expand 
educational opportunities through new technology. Copyright holders and 
our educational institutions worked hard to develop this compromise 
language. I am pleased we were able to introduce it and include it in 
this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield a quick 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time.
  This legislation contains several bills originated by the 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. The Juvenile 
Offender Accountability Act, the Law Enforcement Tribute Act, and the 
Body Armor Act will help make America safer.
  Additionally, this legislation increases penalties for threatening 
Federal judges and other Federal officials, and for threatening 
witnesses, victims and informants.
  An immigration provision I sponsored benefits the high-tech sector. 
It allows high-tech workers with H1-B visas who apply for an extension 
beyond their normal 6 years to extend their stay in the U.S. while 
their application is pending.
  This legislation provides for three additional judgeships in Texas, 
two permanent district judges in the western district and one temporary 
district judge in the eastern district.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, Section 11030 A of the conference report will permit H-
1B aliens who have labor certification applications caught in lengthy 
agency backlogs to extend their status beyond the 6th year limitation 
or, if they have already exceeded such limitation, to have a new H-1B 
petition approved so they can apply for an H-1B visa to return from 
abroad or otherwise re-obtain H-1B status.
  Either a labor certification application or a petition must be filed 
at least 365 days prior to the end of the 6th year in order for the 
alien to be eligible under this section. The slight modification to 
existing law made by this section is necessary to avoid the disruption 
of important projects caused by the sudden loss of valued employees.
  This corrects a problem created in the American Competitiveness in 
the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 106-313)(AC21). The provision, as it was 
orginially written, allowed for extensions of H-1B status beyond the 
usual 6 years, but required that a labor certification be filed more 
than 365 days before the end of the 6th year and that an immigrant 
petition, the next step in the long line to permanent residency, be 
filed before the end of the 6 year as well.
  When it passed AC 21, Congress intended to protect foreign nationals 
and the companies who sponsor them from the inequities of government 
bureaucracy inefficiency. This specific provision was put in place to 
recognize the lengthy delays at INS in adjusticalting petitions, rather 
than DOL. But since that time, DOL has slowed down its own processing, 
and the provision as it was orginially written has become useless for 
many otherwise qualified applicants.
  This correction allows for those in H-1B status to get extensions 
beyond the six years when a labor certification was filed before the 
end of the fifth year, without regard to the ability to file an 
immigrant petition within the next year. The conferees intends that 
those who are about the exceed their six years in H-1B status should 
not be subject to the additional requirement of having to file the 
immigrant petition by the end of the sixth year, which is simply 
impossible when DOL has not finished its part in the process.
  This recognizes that these individuals are already well-valued by 
their companies, have significant ties to the U.S. and whose employers 
have to prove that they are not taking jobs from U.S. workers.
  It also is meant to permit those who have exceeded their six year 
limitation to return to H-1B status. The conferees intend for this 
provision to allow those who already exceeded the 6-year limitation to 
have a new H-1B petition approved and obtain a visa to return from 
abroad or otherwise re-obtain H-1B status.
  In addition, the compromise reached with the Senate on Title IV of 
Division B of this legislation relating to the Violence Against Women 
Office (VAWO) gives the Attorney General discretion about where to 
place the VAWO in the organizational structure and chain of command of 
the Department of Justice as did the version contained in the House 
passed bill.

[[Page H6746]]

  This compromise does not contain language found in section 402(b)(1) 
of the Senate bill which stated that the VAWO ``shall not be part of 
any division or component of the Department of Justice.'' The 
conference report permits the Attorney General the flexibility to 
manage the Department's responsibilities in the area of violence 
against women.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), who is the ranking member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, which did a tremendous job on 
part of the juvenile justice provisions in the legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of the conference report. I believe that it 
offers a balanced approach to reducing juvenile crime and promotes both 
prevention and accountability. States will have an obligation to 
protect children in the juvenile justice system. Runaways and truants 
cannot be contained in secured facilities; juveniles cannot be held in 
adult facilities. The States have to find a systematic method of 
addressing a disproportionate number of incarcerated minority youth.
  It also includes for the first time a measure aimed at preventing the 
abuse of juveniles in residential camps, many of whom are in federally 
funded, but State supervised, foster care. These camps have operated 
away from the public scrutiny for too long, and the result is that 
children have suffered serious injuries and, in several circumstances, 
children have died. This provision requires that residential camps be 
licensed in the State in which they are located and also meet the 
licensing standards of States which send juveniles for placements.
  I also want to take time to thank so many people who participated in 
these components of this legislation. I want to thank Bob Sweet and 
Krisann Pearce of the majority staff on the committee; Judy Borger with 
the staff of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood); and Ruth 
Friedman and Cheryl Johnson and Denise Forte of our staff on the 
minority side. On the Senate side I want to thank Tim Lynch and Beryl 
Howell with Senator Leahy, and Jeff Miller with Senator Kohl, and Leah 
Belaire with Senator Hatch.
  Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) for all the work that he did on behalf of this legislation 
to make it fair and equitable. It is a good piece of legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate our colleagues on the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the committee, and his colleagues for 
their very good work on this DOJ authorization bill.
  I am very pleased that the chairman has included the provisions of 
juvenile justice that we have been trying to pass in this House for 6 
years. We have had countless numbers of hearings, countless numbers of 
markups; we have been to the floor three times, and finally, this 6-
year project is finished.
  I just want to thank the two people most responsible on our 
committee, and that would be the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who have really 
worked hard to help pull this together. I also want to thank the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra), for his fine work; one of our committee staff, Bob Sweet, 
who just did incredible work, working with Members and staff on both 
sides of the aisle to bring about what I would describe as a very good 
agreement and something that has alluded us for a long time.
  Lastly, let me thank two other people, my colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of my 
committee. We have a very good relationship, and we have been able to 
work through many of these difficult issues. Lastly, let me thank again 
Chairman Sensenbrenner for his willingness to include this issue, this 
juvenile justice bill in this DOJ conference report.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise today in support of H.R. 2215, the Department of 
Justice Authorization Conference Report.
  I am pleased that the conferees included my bill H.R. 28, the 
Violence Against Women's Office Act, which was approved by the House 
last year and would make the Violence Against Women Office a permanent 
and independent force in the Department of Justice.
  Created in 1995, this office has been absolutely critical in 
heightening awareness within the Federal Government and the entire 
Nation about domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The 
office formulates policy and administers more than $270 million 
annually in grants to State governments, as well as to local community 
organizations, police, prosecutors and courts to address violence 
against women. In addition, it assists these organizations with 
education and training to ensure the highest quality services to 
victims and the full administration of justice.
  The importance of this office cannot be overestimated. In fact, in a 
survey conducted by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 
reports of domestic violence have dropped 21 percent since the 
inception of this office. Much remains to be done, however, as nearly 
25 percent of women also reported they had been physically and/or 
sexually assaulted by a current or former intimate partner at home some 
time in their lifetime. These statistics illustrate the importance of 
the Violence Against Women Office to the health, safety, and the very 
survival of women all over America.
  The conference report creates an independent Violence Against Women's 
Office within the Department of Justice, rather than making the office 
simply a subsidiary part of the Office of Justice programs. The policy 
independence of the Violence Against Women Office is critical in 
carrying out its unique mission with regard to both its policy and 
grant administration efforts to prevent violence against women.

                              {time}  1545

  The office's work with grantees on very sensitive issues is vital and 
will be best addressed through a separate and independent office. This 
valuable resource has been specifically authorized by statute, and will 
be a permanent part of the government's anti-violence efforts.
  Ending violence against women is an ongoing struggle, and one of the 
best tools is the Violence Against Women Office. I want to give my 
thanks to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member, 
and to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for bringing 
this good bill to the floor today. I give it my support.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who contributed significantly to this 
legislation.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this conference 
report, which contains a bill that I have worked on for several years, 
the James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act of 2002. I 
introduced this bill with Asa Hutchinson and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), and thanks to their strong support of this issue 
and the hard work of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner), the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), and Senator Feinstein, this bill will finally be enacted into 
law.
  We are providing invaluable assistance to our Nation's law 
enforcement at a time when their mission is even more important. 
Violent felons will be prohibited from owning body armor, and serious 
crimes committed while wearing body armor will be punished more 
severely.
  Criminals wear body armor in the commission of crimes so they can 
outgun our law enforcement officers and facilitate their criminal 
intent. This must be stopped. We cannot allow criminals to have an 
advantage over the men and women that put their lives on the line every 
day to protect society. The days of the Wild West are

[[Page H6747]]

over, and gunfights have no place in our society.
  I want to thank the Nation's law enforcement that has rallied behind 
our bill. The Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of 
Police Organizations, the National Troopers Coalition, and the 
International Union of Police Associations have provided invaluable 
support to the bill, as have numerous police departments across the 
Nation, including Los Angeles and New York.
  But I think the greatest thanks goes to Lee Guelff, who has worked 
tirelessly on this cause in the name of his brother. Lee has done much 
and sacrificed more, and today's action serves as a tribute to his 
efforts. Lee's advocacy has resulted in the passage of similar 
provisions in numerous State legislatures, including my own State of 
Michigan.
  James Guelff, Chris McCurley, and many other law enforcement officers 
have been tragically killed by criminals wearing body armor. After the 
events of September 11, our law enforcement officials have been called 
upon to go even further in protecting this great Nation, so I am 
pleased that by passing the James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor 
Act of 2002, we are standing up for them as they rise every day to 
protect us.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank all the people associated with this committee 
for including our bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2215, 
the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization 
Act. I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), 
particularly for their leadership in ensuring that we have worked in a 
bipartisan, cooperative method in developing this conference report.
  It is because of that kind of leadership that we have for the first 
time in over 20 years a bill to authorize the programs and funding in 
the Department of Justice.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is based on the provisions that both sides of 
the aisle in both Chambers can agree on, rather than provisions which 
divide us based on the disagreements. This is especially true in the 
juvenile justice provisions in the bill.
  For years, juvenile justice programs and funding have been 
characterized in both Chambers by contention and differences. In this 
bill are two juvenile justice provisions, one developed in the 
Committee on the Judiciary and one developed in the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. Both bills were developed through 
bipartisan cooperation and agreement, in stark contrast to the 
contention and rancor which has deadlocked both Chambers on the issue 
of juvenile justice in recent years.
  I want to give special credit for the hard work on this bill to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who has worked for years on juvenile 
justice issues.
  Juvenile justice bills in the past have been based on the advice of 
political pollsters and consultants. These bills, however, were 
developed based on advice of juvenile justice researchers, 
administrators, judges, psychologists, educators, and other experts in 
the field.
  The Committee on the Judiciary bill provides for accountability of 
the juvenile to the law, as well as accountability of the juvenile 
justice system to the juvenile and the public through a program of 
graduated sanctions and services.
  States and localities are provided with resources to ensure that 
offenses by juveniles are responded to with an appropriate degree of 
punishment and/or services, as the individual case requires, graduated 
and increasing in the level of punishment or services with any 
subsequent offenses until the problems bringing about such offenses are 
resolved.
  The education bill authorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act for the first time in almost 6 years. We have maintained 
the core requirements of the act that serve to protect juveniles from 
abuse and that direct resources towards reducing overrepresentation of 
minorities in the system.
  This reauthorization also provides resources through a delinquency 
prevention block grant designed to identify at-risk children and to 
address difficulties which may lead to juvenile offenses before such 
offenses occur through proven juvenile delinquency prevention programs.
  The juvenile justice provision of the report also contains a 
provision to ensure that the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention has continued responsibility for the oversight and planning 
for the research, evaluation, and statistical functions of the office, 
in addition to grant and contracting authority for these functions.
  The research and evaluation arm of that office has been critical to 
the development of effective juvenile delinquency prevention programs, 
and this reauthorization reaffirms its important role within the 
office.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, the juvenile justice provisions of this bill 
will provide the necessary resources to effectively reduce juvenile 
delinquency and hold juveniles accountable for any offenses they 
commit.
  I am also pleased to see several other items in the bill which are 
the result of bipartisan cooperation. We converted a temporary 
judgeship in the Eastern District of Virginia to a permanent one, which 
is of critical importance to the area that I represent.
  I am also pleased to have worked to include in the bill the bill 
introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), providing our 
brave law enforcement officers with bulletproof vests, and another bill 
introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) to provide 
suitable tributes to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice 
protecting the public from criminals.
  Mr. Speaker, there are provisions in the bill which some would prefer 
would not be there, and other provisions were left out which some would 
have preferred were in the bill, but the bill represents a well-
reasoned, bipartisan effort to fund important programs in the 
Department of Justice.
  I would like to commend the Members on both sides of the aisle, and 
our respective staffs in both Chambers, for their hard work and 
accomplishments, as well. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this measure because, parochially speaking, it 
does a great deal for some of the projects in which we are so 
interested in Pennsylvania.
  For instance, at Fort Indiantown Gap, this calls for full funding of 
an anti-drug/antiterrorist school and training program that is extant 
in that institution, that military base. That alone would justify my 
vote for this.
  But then we include, on top of that, the fact that there is language 
that will help the State Borough Association implement a plan of 
Pennsylvania-wide security measures and infrastructure protection that 
is vital to our State, as it is to every other State in similar 
circumstances.
  Thirdly, under the INS, there is strong language to help us implement 
the CIVAS program through the designated school officials' training 
program that will make the visa applications of students better 
monitored.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee of Conference on 
H.R. 2215, the Department of Justice Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 
2002 and 2003, I strongly support adoption of the conference report.
  I am particularly pleased that the conference report authorizes 
$10,732,000 and an additional six full-time employees in fiscal year 
2003 for the Community Relations Service (CRS) of the Department of 
Justice. CRS is an extraordinarily important office whose many 
accomplishments have been too little noticed. It has the statutory 
responsibility to assist communities around the United States, and 
particularly minority communities, in preventing violence and resolving 
conflicts arising from racial and ethnic tensions and to develop the 
capacity of such communities to address these conflicts without 
external assistance. They do a wonderful job and we are fortunate to 
have them. The increased authorization

[[Page H6748]]

provided by this section and the additional full-time employees will 
support the expansion of the Community Relations Service's efforts to 
address heightened tension and potential for conflict in many 
communities in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United 
States.
  I am also pleased that the conference report creates a Violence 
Against Women Office with the Department of Justice. The Office will be 
headed by a Director who reports directly to the Attorney General and 
has final authority over all grants, cooperative agreements and 
contracts awarded by the Office.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conference committee wisely decided not to 
include a Senate provision would have exempted federal government 
lawyers from the responsibility to follow the same ethnical rules that 
bind other lawyers. The Senate provision was not only unnecessary, but 
would have been counterproductive to the goal of truly professional law 
enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this important legislation.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to 
Section 312 of the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2215, as well as 
to support passage of this important legislation.
  On the 21st of May this year, I wrote to Congressman Sensenbrenner 
and Ranking Member Conyers to express my concern for the dire shortages 
of federal judges in the State of New Mexico, and to request that the 
Committee authorize an additional judgeship for the District of New 
Mexico in the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
Authorization Act.
  Today, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Conyers 
and the members of the Conference Committee for including 
appropriations for an additional temporary judgeship for the State of 
New Mexico in Section 312 of the Report.
  New Mexico is the 3rd busiest judicial district in the nation behind 
southern California and western Texas. In 1996, the Judiciary Council 
recommended that New Mexico receive one new permanent judgeship and one 
temporary judgeship. Two years later, the council reiterated that 
recommendation. Then, in 2000, the Judicial Conference recommended that 
New Mexico receive two permanent judgeships and one temporary 
judgeship.
  Since the Conference's first recommendation six years ago, the 
caseload in the federal courts in New York has been on the rise, 
seemingly growing exponentially each year. Accordingly, the judgeship 
appropriated in Section 312 will help alleviate the pressure felt 
within this increasingly overloaded judiciary system, and provide the 
people of New Mexico more efficient accessibly to federal courts.
  Once again, I think my collegues for considering my request.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the DOJ authorization 
bill because it does enhance the Violence Against Women Office and 
increase assistance to our law enforcement officers.
  I also applaud the provision of the bill that directs the Attorney 
General to conduct a study to assess the number of untested rape 
examination kits that currently exist nationwide.
  However, I know we could have done more.
  It would be nice to know how many rape kits are outstanding. But it 
is much more important that we fund the DNA analysis of the kits and 
solve crimes, rather than simply counting how many kits remain on the 
shelf.
  We know there are outstanding kits, anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000 
of them, and we need money to test them. Asking for a study doesn't put 
any rapists behind bars.
  Now, you may ask, what else could we possibly do about this?
  Well, we could have put money for testing into the DOJ authorization 
bill. In fact, I asked the distinguished Chairman to do just that. He 
told me the study was the best he could do.
  Well, I know we can do better. In fact, the Senate already has. The 
Senate already had hearings, already had a markup, and already passed a 
bill under unaminous consent. Now, the House has the opportunity to 
take up S. 2513, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act. We could have put 
this bipartisan bill into the conference report, but we didn't.
  The Senate bill included $500,000 for a study, but it didn't stop 
there. The Senate bill also includes $15 million a year for DNA testing 
for convicted felons, $75 million a year to test rape kits, and $150 
million over five years to train nurses how to better collect evidence. 
That is a lot better and would make much more of an impact than an 
unfunded study.
  Now, some may say, we just didn't have time to address this problem. 
Well, I introduced a bill to solve this problem back in March of this 
year. It has never had a hearing. It has never been considered by the 
Judiciary Committee. It has been ignored, just like all the untested 
rape kits across America. So, we had plenty of time to address this 
issue, the Republican leadership simply chose not to.
  This is a serious effort to combat crime, locate and apprehend 
rapists, and use powerful evidence to put them behind bars. We all know 
that DNA evidence is essential to solving crimes. It can lead to 
punishment of the guilty and the freeing of the innocent. The 
Department of Justice released a statement yesterday that mentioned the 
``unprecedented success in linking serial violent crimes by registering 
more than 80 matches against the FBI's National DNA Index System (NDIS) 
last month.'' The Department also states that ``two of these matches 
resulted in the arrest in Pennsylvania of the perpetrator of two 
rapes.'' The DOJ reports that the DNA evidence solved 24 previously 
unsolved cases, and that nine matches involved connecting together 
previously unrelated crime scenes.
  We must commit the necessary resources now to empower law enforcement 
to analyze all of the DNA evidence they collect, so that they can solve 
cases and bring justice to American families.
  We already have a non-controversial bill that we could make law very 
quickly (we could even do it today), and it would be an immediate 
benefit to people all across America, especially victims of rape and 
sexual assault.
  It is time for Congress to lend a hand to our law enforcement 
officers and provide them with the funds needed to solve these crimes 
and put rapists behind bars.
  Since some Members were unwilling to include the Senate rape kit bill 
in this authorization bill, I now urge the leadership to bring the 
Senate bill up for a vote as soon as possible. I have a letter here 
signed by more than a dozen Members of Congress urging Majority Leader 
Armey to take up the Senate bill, and I ask unanimous consent that this 
letter be included as part of the Record. I also ask unanimous consent 
to include the Statement by the U.S. Department of Justice that I 
mentioned earlier.

Statement of U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation

       The FBI Laboratory today lauded state and local 
     laboratories unprecedented success in linking serial violent 
     crimes by registering more than 80 matches against the FBI's 
     National DNA Index System (NDIS) last month. Additionally, 
     the FBI's federal convicted offender program recorded its 
     first NDIS match during the final week in August. The federal 
     match was between the federal convicted offender database and 
     a DNA profile from a case involving a sexual assault of a 
     juvenile in Tampa, Florida contributed by the Florida 
     Department of Law Enforcement. Two weeks later, as a result 
     of this match, an arrest was made in this case.
       The final week of August was one of the most successful 
     weeks ever in the four years that NDIS has been operational. 
     During that week, 33 matches were made, 17 by Oklhoma in that 
     state's upload of DNA profiles into NDIS. To illustrate the 
     power and reach of NDIS. Oklahoma's DNA matches were made 
     with cases in the FBI Laboratory, Kansas, Colorado, Missouri, 
     Texas, California, Arizona, and Maine. Examples of other 
     matches included the FBI Laboratory matching a profile from 
     New York; and Virginia posting matches with Washington state 
     and Oregon.
       Of the 33 matches made in the last week of August, 24 
     matched convicted offender DNA profiles already contained in 
     the national database with DNA profiles from unknown 
     individuals obtained at crime scenes or from rape kits, thus 
     solving these previously unsolved cases. Two of these matches 
     resulted in the arrest in Pennsylvania of the perpetrator of 
     two rapes. The other nine matches involved connecting 
     together previously unrelated crime scenes.
       The FBI implemented NDIS is October, 1998 to allow state 
     laboratories the ability to electronically compare and 
     exchange DNA profiles with one another in an effort to link 
     serial violent offenses. Today 44 states, the FBI and U.S. 
     Army Lab participate in the NDIS program NDIS contains nearly 
     1.4 million offender DNA samples and 47,000 DNA profiles 
     developed from crime scenes and rape kills. In the four years 
     of NDIS, there have been approximately 5,000 DNA profile 
     matches across 36 states and the District of Columbia. In 
     December, 2000 legislation was passed which authorized 
     collection and inclusion of DNA samples of certain federal 
     offenders into NDIS. Full implementation of the federal 
     convicted offender program began in July, 2002. In only the 
     second upload of federal data, the first federal match was 
     made.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 2002.
     Hon. Dick Armey,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, the Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader Armey: We are writing to urge you to bring up 
     the Senate passed bill, S. 2513, the DNA Sexual Assault 
     Justice Act, without delay.
       This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on 
     September 12th. Similar legislation has been introduced in 
     the House and has gathered the support of a substantial 
     number of supporters. We believe this bill could be passed 
     into law quickly and would be an immediate benefit to people 
     all across America, especially victims of rape and sexual 
     assault.

[[Page H6749]]

       ABC's 20/20 reports that hundreds of thousands of rape kits 
     sit unprocessed in police storage units across the country. 
     There could be anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000 kits that 
     remain untested. That means that DNA evidence from rape kits 
     is going untested and crimes are going unsolved. This is 
     totally unacceptable. It is time for Congress to lend a hand 
     to our law enforcement officers and provide them with the 
     funds needed to solve these crimes and to put rapists behind 
     bars.
       This is a serious effort to combat crime, locate and 
     apprehend rapists, and use powerful evidence to put them 
     behind bars. We all know that DNA evidence is essential to 
     solving crimes. It can lead to punishment of the guilty and 
     the freeing of the innocent. We must commit the necessary 
     resources now to empower law enforcement to analyze all of 
     the DNA evidence they collect, so that they can solve cases 
     and bring justice to American families.
       As the number of bills on this issue as well as the number 
     of supporters indicate, there is strong public interest in 
     this issue. We hope that you will schedule S. 2513 for House 
     floor consideration as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
         Jerrold Nadler, John Conyers, Jr., Bernard Sanders, Gary 
           Ackerman, Rod Blagojevich, Danny Davis, Carolyn 
           Maloney, Robert Andrews, Lane Evans, Rush Holt, Corrine 
           Brown, Maurice Hinchey, Tammy Baldwin, Brad Carson, 
           James Langevin, Sam Farr, Juanita Millender-McDonald, 
           Ron Kind, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Julia Carson.

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, this Conference Report does not include a 
permanent Judgeship for the State of Nebraska. Since 1998 Nebraska has 
exceeded the weighted standard of 430 filings per judge, and in 2001, 
that number grew to 482 filings. Without this permanent Judgeship, over 
the next year filings are expected to rise to over 600 per Judge. 
Currently, the caseload in Nebraska is the 9th heaviest in the Nation, 
and is only expected to increase. Nebraska has a higher drug 
prosecution rate than any other federal court in the 7th and 8th 
circuit; 65 percent of our drug cases are methamphetamine prosecutions, 
compared to a national average of 14.5 percent. The continued absence 
of this Judgeship hurts the citizens of Nebraska and brings an already 
over-worked court system to near standstill.
  This permanent Judgeship was included in the House-passed Department 
of Justice Authorization bill, and I would like to thank Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for their assistance in this 
effort. However, I learned last night that the Nebraska's permanent 
judgeship designation had been stripped from the conference report. I 
have no idea why this language was stripped out, and it upsets me that 
I've been unable to obtain a definitive answer. I'm left to believe 
that this designation was eliminated due to political concerns, and it 
was not a decision based upon merit or need.
  Nebraska has had a temporary Judgeship since 1990 and will expire in 
November 2003. What occurred in conference is unfair to the State of 
Nebraska, and will negatively impact an already strained court system.

      Nebraska Temporary/Permanent Judgeship Issue, April 8, 2002

       (Currently three permanent and one temporary judgeship)
       1. Need for permanent judgeship in Nebraska is critical:
       A. Temporary judgeship created in 1990.
       B. Expires first judge to leave after November 20, 2003.
       C. Based on 430 weighted standard, Nebraska eligible for 
     even a fifth judge, but not asking for that.
       D. Since 1998, District of Nebraska exceeded 430 weighted 
     filing per judge.
       E. 2001--weighted case load was 482 per judge, with a 95 
     percent confidence level of 525-440 cases.
       F. 2001 busiest year in last 6 years with 1500 new filings 
     and 1242 pending cases.
       G. Weighted filings in 2001--482, highest in last six 
     years, compared to 377 in 1996.
       H. Without this judgeship, weighted filings expected to 
     exceed 600 per judge.
       2. Criminal filings very heavy:
       A. Very heavy for last 12 years and continues to increase.
       B. 17th heaviest in nation in 1998, 12th in nation in 1999, 
     and 9th in nation in 2001 (ranks 9th out of 94 districts).
       C. Caseload per judge is double that of 1996: 118 per judge 
     vs. 58 per judge.
       D. Average caseload is 50 percent greater in criminal cases 
     than average federal judge.
       E. Heavier criminal case load than judges in New York City, 
     Chicago, or Los Angeles.
       F. Highest drug prosecutions than any other federal court 
     in the 7th and 8th Circuits.
       G. Nebraska's drug docket is 66 percent, while national 
     average is less than 40 percent.
       H. 64 percent of drug cases is methamphetamine, compared to 
     national average of 14.5 percent.
       I. Nebraska ranked 2nd in the number of high level drug 
     trafficking defendants indicated and convicted in the Central 
     Region (includes 12 states).
       J. Criminal caseload is expanding; crack cocaine defendants 
     doubled over last year, and meth defendants increased 88 
     percent.
       3. Senior judges:
       A. Two senior judges, and each carry about 100 cases.
       B. Will not be able to continue to carry a caseload that 
     heavy.
       C. Both judges are over 75, and one has indicated he wishes 
     to cut his caseload by 50 percent in 2002.
       D. No additional help from senior judges available.
       E. Note that one active judge has serious cancer, but no 
     senior judges available in future to help with that caseload.
       4. Magistrate judges:
       A. Three magistrate judges, two in Omaha and one in 
     Lincoln.
       B. All three are fully utilized in criminal cases, 
     preliminary civil dispositions, ADR management, and consent 
     trials.
       5. Visiting Judges:
       A. Forced to request assistance of visiting judges in 2001 
     to handle the heavy volume of criminal/civil cases.
       B. Will not address severe problem.
       6. Current legislation:
       A. H.R. 2215 does not include a recommendation that 
     Nebraska temporary judgeship be converted into a permanent 
     one, although recommendations for other states (Central 
     District of Illinois, Southern District of Illinois, and 
     Northern District of Ohio) are addressed.
       B. Nebraska must be included in that legislation.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering the 
conference report on H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice 
Appropriations Authorization Act which includes provisions that make 
several existing temporary Federal judgeships permanent. Unfortunately, 
Nebraska was not included on the list.
  This Member greatly appreciates the attempts by the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) to make this critically 
important improvement for the people of Nebraska. Despite the 
gentleman's best efforts, the conferees from the other body would not 
agree to include Nebraska on this list. As such, this Member is very 
concerned and disappointed that the Nebraska judgeship was not included 
in the final conference report.
  The Nebraska temporary judgeship was created in 1990, and will expire 
with the first vacancy after November 2003. The caseload for the 
Federal District Court in Nebraska has steadily increased since that 
time, rising well above the Judicial Conference weighted standard of 
430. In fact, in 2001, there were 1500 new filings and 1242 pending 
cases, with a weighted filing of 482. Without this judgeship, the 
weighted filings are expected to exceed 600 per judge. In addition, 
Nebraska currently has two District Court judges who have taken senior 
status and are expected to retire in the near future, further 
increasing the caseload on Nebraska judges.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly, this is an important issue to this Member and 
to the state of Nebraska. It is impossible for this Member to 
understand the reason this important change was not included in this 
conference report. The opportunity was available and yet inexplicably 
not taken by the conferees from the other body. However, because of the 
many important provisions in this bill, this Member will vote ``aye'' 
even while expressing his extraordinary disappointment and regret that 
the permanent Nebraska judgeship was not included in the conference 
report. If there was a problem on another issue or judgeship in the 
House offer, Nebraskans did not deserve to lose this opportunity for 
the much-needed permanent judgeship designation.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, today, along with my fellow conferees, I'm 
pleased to deliver a comprehensive conference report and ask for other 
members' support. We have worked diligently to address a wide variety 
of issues. From crime prevention programs, to drug education and 
treatment, a fix in the H1-B visa system and the inclusion of the 
Judicial Improvements Act, this conference report is a complete 
package. I'd like to take the opportunity to highlight these provisions 
and thank several individuals who made the inclusion in this conference 
report possible.
  First, the conference report includes a provision that permits 
consumers who visit wineries to ship a limited quantity of wine back to 
their homes. This language is needed because post-September 11, as the 
Federal Aviation Administration and Congress supported strong airline 
security measures, it became difficult, if not impossible, to carry-on 
bottles of wine after a visit to a winery. This provision is not only 
pro-consumer, but it is also very important to California's $12 billion 
wine industry. I would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his 
support on this provision.
  In addition to the direct shipment of wine, we are also including 
legislative language that will allow motor vehicle dealers, who sign 
franchise contracts with manufacturers, to have the opportunity to 
either accept or reject mandatory binding arbitration after a legal 
dispute arises. Currently, the mandatory arbitration requirements are 
either ``take it or leave it'' provisions in the contracts, forcing 
auto dealers to

[[Page H6750]]

waive important legal safeguards. I would personally like to thank 
Chairman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Gekas for their support on this 
issue.
  Finally, I am very pleased that this conference report includes five 
additional federal judgeships for the Southern District of California, 
as well as one temporary judgeship for the Central District of 
California. The numbers speak for themselves; the Southern California 
District is the most overwhelmed in the country and greatly needs these 
additional judgeships. In the year 2000, the weighted caseload for the 
Southern District of California was 978 cases per judge. That was more 
than double the national average of 430. Most alarming is the number of 
felony cases, which tripled between 1994 and 1999 without additional 
judgeships. These additional judgeships will ensure that the very 
integrity of our judicial process will be protected. For that, I'd like 
to thank all of the conferees for their support.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we all know by now that this is an historic 
moment--Congress has not reauthorized the Department of Justice in over 
20 years; instead, we have left the responsibility to the appropriators 
to decide which Department programs should be authorized and their 
maximum funding level.
  This conference report, arrived at after months of bipartisan, 
bicameral negotiations, expresses the views of the authorizing 
committees about how these programs should operate. I'd like to thank 
Conference and Senate Judiciary Chairman Leah, House Judiciary Chairman 
Sensenbrenner, and Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Hatch for working 
with us on this legislation.
  Aside from the authorizing language and technical corrections to the 
antitrust, criminal, and intellectual property laws, important 
compromises were reached between the House and Senate on other non-
controversial provisions so they could be included in this report. 
Included are:
  A provisions supported by Representative Mary Bono and myself to 
ensure that parties to motor vehicle franchise contracts cannot be 
subject to mandatory arbitration without their consent;
  A provision supported by Representative Tammy Baldwin, Representative 
Louise Slaughter, and myself to establish an independent Violence 
Against Women Office within the Department of Justice. This provision 
raises the profile of the Office by having its Director report directly 
to the Attorney General instead of through other subordinates. This 
demonstrates our commitment to rooting out, deterring, and preventing 
violence against women;
  A provision that expands vocational and remedial opportunities to 
smooth the reentry of inmates post-incarceration;
  A provision offered by Representative Barney Frank that allows 
grandparents to apply for citizenship for a child in the event that the 
parents are deceased;
  A provision offered by Representative Adam Schiff to create a fund 
that disburses Federal grants for states and localities to construct 
memorials to officers killed or disabled while protecting the public;
  A provision drafted by Representative Lamar Smith and Representative 
Bobby Scott that authorizes grants for states and local governments to 
improve their juvenile justice programs; and
  The Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, which will allow one-stop 
shopping for international trademark registration. This bill has passed 
the House on several occasions and finally will be enacted into law.
  At the same time, the Republicans were not able to accept a permanent 
extension of chapter 12 (family farmer bankruptcy) or higher 
compensation for workers who are laid-off as a result of a corporate 
bankruptcy. I hope we can address these issues before adjourning this 
session.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this conference report.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering the 
conference report for H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice 
Appropriations Authorization Act. While this conference report 
authorizes appropriations for the Justice Department, it also 
establishes federal judgeships. Despite the efforts of Chairman 
Sensenbrenner, this legislation fails to make permanent Nebraska's 
temporary judgeship, which is set to expire November 20, 2003.
  Caseloads for U.S. district judges in Nebraska have climbed steadily 
largely because of an increasing number of criminal cases, particularly 
those related to drug trafficking. In fact, criminal cases have more 
than doubled since 1995. Like many other states in the Midwest, 
Nebraska has been plagued in recent years by an influx of 
methamphetamine (meth), and criminal cases involving meth represent 66 
percent of Nebraska's drug docket, compared to the national average of 
14.5 percent.
  The influx of meth in Nebraska will continue to cause the criminal 
caseload to increase. In the last year alone, the number of meth 
defendants increased by 88 percent. Interstate 80, which runs the 
length of the state of Nebraska, is one of the primary transit routes 
used for drug trafficking across the central United States. This has 
contributed to Nebraska being ranked second in the number of high-level 
drug trafficking defendants indicted and convicted in the Central 
Region, which includes 12 states.
  This substantial increase in Nebraska's criminal trials leaves 
Nebraska's federal judges with extremely heavy caseloads. In fact, 
Nebraska's judges carry a heavier criminal caseload than judges in New 
York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. This fourth judgeship is 
critically important to Nebraska, and without it, criminal cases will 
move more slowly and handling civil cases will become increasingly 
burdensome.
  Mr. Speaker, while I am grateful for the efforts of Chairman 
Sensenbrenner on this issue, I am very disappointed this conference 
report does not address Nebraska's serious need for a permanent 
judgeship. Without this fourth judgeship, Nebraska's criminal justice 
system will be in real trouble.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report for 
H.R. 2215, ``The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
Authorization Act.'' I thank Chairman James Sensenbrenner, the House 
and Senate Conferees and the Judiciary Committee staff for their 
leadership on this bill.
  Within this Conference Report, in section 312, the Southern District 
of California will receive five judgeships. This authorization will 
bring immense relief to this district. As you may know, Southern 
California has the dubious distinction of having the highest judge to 
caseload ratio in the nation. I have met with four of the sitting 
judges in this district and have seen first hand the problems they face 
on a daily basis. In 1998, the Southern District, which has 8 
judgeships, had a weighted caseload of 1,006 cases per judge, annually.
  I want to give you a comparison of the caseload to judges from 
different regions of the United States to show you how overloaded the 
judges in the Southern District of California are:
  New York has 28 judgeships and each one handles 468 cases annually, 
LA has 27 judgeships/481 caseload, Chicago--22 judgeships/381 caseload, 
Houston--18 judgeships/588 caseload, Philadelphia--22 judgeship/381 
caseload.
  Congress has not authorized any new judgeships for the Southern 
District since 1990, and with this district being a border corridor, I 
do not expect the level of criminal activity to diminish in the near 
future. Passing this bill is necessary to ease the burden on the 
sitting judges of the Southern District.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 400, 
nays 4, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 422]

                               YEAS--400

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle

[[Page H6751]]


     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--4

     Duncan
     Flake
     Kerns
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Bachus
     Barcia
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Clayton
     Condit
     Conyers
     Dooley
     Ehrlich
     Gilchrest
     Israel
     Maloney (NY)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Mink
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Shadegg
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Stump
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Waxman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1649

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 422 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________




Copyright © 1999-2002 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM


Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: