A bill for the relief of Hotaru Nakama Ferschke.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1774) for the relief of Hotaru Nakama Ferschke.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 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.

S. 1774 is an immigration relief bill for Hotaru Nakama Ferschke. By now the story of Mrs. Ferschke and her late husband, Marine Sergeant Michael H. Ferschke, Jr., should be well known to Members of the House.

The couple met in March 2007 when Sergeant Ferschke was stationed at Camp Schwab in Okinawa, Japan. They dated for more than 1 year before Sergeant Ferschke was deployed to Iraq. Shortly before his departure, they learned that they were going to have a baby. They spoke about getting married, moving back to the United States, and raising a family together.

Two months after arriving in Iraq, they were married through a ceremony conducted over the telephone. But just 1 month later, Sergeant Ferschke tragically lost his life in combat.

The United States military recognizes the couple's marriage for purposes of providing Mrs. Ferschke with a death gratuity. But our immigration laws recognize only proxy marriages that have been consummated, something this couple was never able to do following the marriage. As a result, Mrs. Ferschke has been unable to move to the United States on an immigrant visa, and her hopes of raising their son with the love and support of Sergeant Ferschke's family have been thwarted.

Last month, the House passed H.R. 6397, the Marine Sergeant Michael H. Ferschke, Jr. Memorial Act. The purpose of that bill was to fix Mrs. Ferschke's situation and to ensure that no other family is left in a similar situation. Because that bill remains stuck in the Senate, a relief bill for Mrs. Ferschke is the only way to right this wrong.

I commend Senators Webb, Alexander, Corker, and Udall for introducing this bill in the Senate, and Representative John Duncan for his work on a companion bill in the House. I would also recognize Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith for helping to move this bill to the floor.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

U.S. Department of Homeland

Security,

Washington, DC., March 5, 2010.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren,

Chair, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,

Border Security, and International Law Committee on the

Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Chair: In response to your request for a report

relative to H.R. 3182, private legislation for the relief of

Hotaru Nakama Ferschke, enclosed is a memorandum of

information concerning the beneficiary. This report is an

update of one previously provided your committee on February

26, 2010, revised to reflect additional information provided

by your staff.

The bill provides that the beneficiary shall be eligible

for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status

to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence

upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa

under section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or

for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.

We hope the information provided is useful. Please do not

hesitate to call me if you have additional questions.

Sincerely,

Elliot Williams,

Director.

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Memorandum of Information for H.R. 3182, 111th Congress

On July 10, 2009, Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) introduced H.R.

3182, private legislation to provide immigration relief for

Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke. This is the first private bill filed on

her behalf.

The beneficiary is the widow of Michael Harvey Ferschke,

Jr., a United States Marine who was killed-in-action August

10, 2008, as a result of a gunshot wound received as a member

of a dismounted patrol that was conducting combat operations

in Tikrit, Iraq. Mr. Ferschke passed away before an I-130

immediate relative petition could be filed on Ms. Ferschke's

behalf.

Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke was born on October 20, 1983, and is a

native and citizen of Japan. Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke has entered

the United States 3 times as a temporary visitor. She entered

the United States on December 12, 2007, August 15, 2008, and

February 27, 2009. Each time she came to the U.S. she

complied with the terms of her visa and departed before her

visa expired. Ms. Ferschke has never been placed in removal

proceedings or ordered removed.

Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke met her husband while he was stationed

at the U.S. Marine base in Okinawa, Japan. They traveled to

the United States from December 22, 2007, through December

30, 2007, for the Christmas holiday, where she met Michael's

parents, Mr. Michael H. Ferschke, and Mrs. Robin Ferschke.

When Michael Ferschke, Jr. received orders to deploy to Iraq,

Hotaru, who was pregnant, remained in Okinawa. Michael

Ferschke Jr. and Hotaru Nakama were married via

teleconference on July 10, 2008, while he was in Iraq and she

was in Japan. One month later, Michael was killed during

Operation Iraqi Freedom in support of the Global War on

Terrorism.

On August 15, 2008, Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke returned to the

United States to attend the funeral for her late husband in

Maryville, Tennessee. She returned to Okinawa on August 31,

2008.

On January 9, 2009, Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke gave birth to a

son, Michael Harvey Ferschke III at the Chatan Hospital,

Okinawa, Japan, and on February 27, 2009, she brought her

newborn son to the United States. When in the United States,

they reside with her late husband's parents in Tennessee.

Neighbors have welcomed Hotaru and her new son into the

community.

Mrs. Ferschke is the daughter of Mr. Masaaki and Mrs.

Takako Nakama, both of whom are natives and citizens of

Japan. Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke resides with her mother and

grandmother, Mitsu Shinzato. Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke is one of

four children, between sisters, Madoka Kudaka and Reika

Nakama and her half-sister NaNami Nakama. Mrs. Hotaru

Ferschke attended Okinawa Christian Junior College where she

majored in English.

Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke is currently employed as an

Administrative Specialist with the United States Army's 83rd

Ordnance Battalion CASB, Kadena Air Base Okinawa, Japan where

she has been employed since August 2007. Prior to her

employment with the 83rd Ordnance Battalion she was employed

at the Camp Courtney Commissary, Unit 5156, as a sales clerk.

Her annual salary is estimated to be $24,000.00 per year.

Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke has seen substantial support from the

community here in the United States. Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke is

not employed in the United States. She is a new member of the

American Widows Project, a support group for the wives and

husbands of fallen U.S. soldiers. Record checks concerning

criminal activity with U.S. Federal, state, and local law

enforcement agencies revealed no derogatory information.

Commercial databases revealed no known debts or encumbrances,

foreign or domestic. Inquiries with neighbors of Mr. Michael

H. Ferschke and Mrs. Robin Ferschke regarding Hotaru Ferschke

revealed no derogatory information.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the hidden taxes that American families could be forced to pay under the Baucus proposal if Congress doesn't cut half a trillion dollars in Medicare services. Despite the score we saw last week by the CBO that there would be an estimated $81 billion in savings to the Federal Government, the fine print of that CBO letter paints a different picture and raises some real concerns about whether Congress has the stomach to cut $500 billion in services to the elderly and the disabled on Medicare.

This point was raised over the weekend. There were several editorials that ran in the Washington Post, Reuters, the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Colorado Springs Gazette, and they criticized the Baucus bill for unrealistically relying on $500 billion in savings in Medicare. These articles conclude that Congress is unlikely to enact Medicare cuts based on their annual action--our annual action--since 2003 that has stopped cuts to the doctors' reimbursement rates under the sustainable growth rates formula. This is what we call the SGR.

In 1997, Congress enacted the SGR formula, which automatically cuts Medicare reimbursement rates when annual spending for doctors' visits exceeds the SGR target. Every year since 2003, Congress has stepped in to prevent these cuts from going into effect. The question should be asked whether it is wrong for Congress to prevent these cuts. I suggest no, absolutely not. In fact, there is virtually unanimous agreement among Republicans, Democrats, and the President that the fixes must happen because the SGR is a flawed formula that doesn't accurately account for Medicare practice costs.

The SGR, however, is just one example of how Congress has been unwilling to not only prevent cuts to the Medicare Program but also unwilling to fix the flawed SGR formula. Except for 1 year, in 2002, when Congress allowed the 5.4-percent cut to go into effect, every year since then Congress has ``fixed'' the Medicare cut by affixing a Band- Aid, which has resulted in artificially adjusting the Medicare reimbursement rates and pushing larger ``phantom cuts'' into future years. Will this year's 21-percent cut to Medicare provider reimbursement rates go into effect? It is highly unlikely. In fact, the Baucus bill contains another Band-Aid measure that pushes this year 21- percent cut into 2010, with the notion that next year doctors will face an even larger, 25 cut under the Finance Committee proposal.

While the past is not always indicative of the future, I believe it is highly unlikely that we in Congress will witness any willingness to make a game-changing ``audible'' that forces half a trillion dollars in cuts to services for our seniors and for the disabled. The CBO has acknowledged this in a letter to Senator Baucus when they discussed the budgetary impact of the health care bill. CBO said:

The mechanism governing Medicare's payments to physicians

has frequently been modified (either through legislation or

administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments.

. . .The long-term budgetary impact [of the Finance Committee

proposal] could be quite different if those provisions were

ultimately changed or not fully implemented.

If, since 2003, Congress had stepped in to prevent Medicare cuts from going into effect, why should we expect Congress to now take the unprecedented step of cutting nearly half a trillion dollars from the Medicare Program? In fact, there was an editorial in the Washington Post last month talking about CBO's assumption of Medicare savings. They said:

Many Medicare ``savings'' are probably phony. Congress is

likely to reverse them, as in the past. Put in that category

about $200 billion in ``savings'' over 10 years from lower

reimbursement rates for doctors, which Congress has

repeatedly prevented from occurring. A separate $180 billion

in ``savings'' from lower reimbursement for hospitals and

other providers are similarly suspect. Together, these items

provide about half the [Baucus plan's] financing. If half a

trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of

Medicare, why wait for health care reform? If, as Obama

repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the

budget, why hasn't he gotten started on the painless billions

in ``waste and fraud'' savings?

That was in the Washington Post last month.

Just today, on the front page of the Washington Post, it was reported that the SGR fix included in the House bill, H.R. 3200, was stripped out of the health care reform bill that passed in three House committees of jurisdiction. Leaders in the House are citing the $240 billion cost of the SGR fix as the main reason for removing this provision. I believe Congress is being shortsighted in not addressing a major concern in the Medicare Program--a concern that not only would address reimbursement decreases that doctors have faced every year since 2002, but also the concerns about access to doctors that is worrying more and more Medicare patients every day. By stripping this important provision out of the House bill, Medicare patients are left crossing their fingers in the hopes that the SGR fix will ultimately be included in the health reform bill. I believe removal of this essential and important provision, not only because of policy concerns but, rather, because House leaders want to stay below an arbitrary pricetag, simply shows Congress's unwillingness to address significant failures in a government health program that impacts the lives of some 44 million elderly and disabled Americans.

We know the government has been promising to cut from the Medicare Program, particularly in the areas of waste, fraud, and abuse, since the Reagan administration. Yet spending continues to rise. There is no reason to believe this is going to ever change. I will not support cuts in services under the Medicare Program. I will ask my colleagues to give weighted consideration to whether they would be willing to tell their Medicare seniors and disabled constituents that they voted to cut $500 billion from their Medicare insurance. Inevitably, if the Congress cannot pass a measure to cut from Medicare, then the money will have to be made up either through increased taxes on average American families or in the form of additional deficits that will burden future generations of Americans.

Mr. President, with over $2 trillion spent on bailouts, stimulus, and cash for clunkers in just the past 22 months, we must be better stewards and more vigilant of the potential for additional costs to working families for expanding government services and creating more mandates for health insurance.

With that, I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise tonight to announce that I am introducing legislation designed to help promote the cleanup of abandoned and inactive hard rock mines that are a menace to the environment and public health throughout the country, but especially to the West.

In previous sessions of Congress when I was a Member of the House of Representatives, I introduced similar bills. Following the introduction of those previous bills, revisions were made to incorporate a number of changes developed in consultation with a wide range of interested parties. These parties included representatives of the Western Governors' Association, the Environmental Protection Agency, the hardrock mining industry, and environmental groups.

The bill I am introducing today is also the product of further consultations. It represents years of effort to reach agreement on establishing a program to advance the cleanup of polluted water from abandoned mines.

For over one hundred years, miners and prospectors have searched for and developed valuable hardrock minerals, such as gold, silver, and copper. Hardrock mining has played a key role in the history of Colorado and many other States. The resulting mineral wealth has been an important aspect of our economy and the development of essential products that we all take for granted.

However, as all westerners know, this history has too often been marked by a series of ``boom'' times followed by ``busts,'' when mines were no longer profitable. When these busts came, too often the miners would abandon their work and move on, seeking riches over the next mountain. The resulting legacy of unsafe open mine shafts and acid mine drainages can be seen throughout the country and especially on the Western public lands where mineral development was encouraged to help settle our region.

The problems caused by abandoned and inactive mines are very real and very large. They include acidic water draining from old tunnels; heavy metals leaching into streams, killing fish and tainting water supplies; open vertical mine shafts; dangerous highwalls; large open pits; waste rock piles that are unsightly and dangerous; and hazardous dilapidated structures.

Unfortunately, many of our current environmental laws, designed to mitigate the impact from operating hard rock mines, are of limited effectiveness when they are applied to abandoned and inactive mines. As a result, many of these old mines go on polluting streams and rivers and potentially risking the health of people who live nearby or downstream.

Right now, there are two serious obstacles to progress. One is a serious lack of funds for cleaning up sites for which no private person or entity can be held liable. The other obstacle is legal.

While the Clean Water Act is one of the most effective and important of our environmental laws, as applied to abandoned hard rock mines, it can mean that someone undertaking to clean up an abandoned or inactive mine will be exposed to the same liability that would apply to a party responsible for creating the site's problems in the first place. As a result, would-be Good Samaritans understandably have been unwilling to volunteer their services to clean up abandoned and inactive mines.

The Governors of our Western States have recognized the need for action to address this serious problem. They have adopted bipartisan resolutions on this subject, such as the position adopted in the 2007 resolution entitled ``Cleaning Up Abandoned Mines.'' In this resolution, the Governors urged Congress to take action to address liability issues and funding concerns. The Governors sent a letter in November 2007 expressing support for the previous version of the bill I am introducing today.

The bill I am filing today will help address this impediment and make it easier for volunteers, who had no role in creating the problem, to help clean up these sites and improve the environment. It does so by providing a new permit program whereby volunteers can, under an approved plan, reduce the water pollution flowing from an abandoned mine. At the same time, volunteers will not be exposed to the full liability and ongoing responsibility provisions of the Clean Water Act.

Unlike other bills that have been introduced on this topic, my bill only addresses Clean Water Act liability and does not waive any other environmental law. This is because I do not believe we have to go that far. There are administrative avenues and options available to Good Samaritans to address compliance without other environmental laws that may apply at these sites. However, such administrative options are not available for Clean Water Act liability. So my bill only addresses this restriction on moving forward on projects to clean up water releases.

The new permit proposed in my bill would help address problems that have frustrated Federal and State agencies throughout the country. As population growth continues near these old mines, more and more risks to public health and safety are likely to occur. We simply must begin to address this issue, not only to improve the environment but also to ensure that our water supplies are safe and usable.

Let me be clear, the bill does not address all the concerns some would-be Good Samaritan may have about initiating cleanup projects. I am committed to continue working to address those additional concerns through additional legislation and in other ways. But the bill I am filing today can make a real difference, and I think it deserves approval without unnecessary delay.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a longer version of my statement.

Mr. President, we are debating a lot of great long-term issues in this body. I wish to speak for a short period of time today about something on the other end of the political spectrum, about something that I believe is an issue--a small issue--a private bill that all of us should come together on in rather quick measure.

Every now and then, there comes an issue that tells us a lot about who we are and how we live up to our promises, great and small, and particularly the promises that we make to those who step forward and place their lives on the line in order to carry out the policies that we ourselves put in place.

Like all of the Members of this body, I take a back seat to no one in my affection and support for the people who step forward and serve our country. I come from a family that has a long citizen-soldier tradition. I have several ancestors--direct ancestors--who fought in the American Revolution, and we have participated as citizen-soldiers in just about every war since then.

My colleagues know how strongly I feel about the U.S. Marine Corps. I had the great privilege of commanding marines in combat in Vietnam. My brother was a marine. My son is a marine. My son-in-law is a marine.

Many of my colleagues know of my long association with the people of Okinawa, beginning almost 41 years ago when I first was there on my way into Vietnam, but continuing as a journalist, as a government official, as a tourist, as a guest of the government.

As most of my colleagues know, in my nongovernment service, I principally made my living as a writer, as a novelist. All of these issues dovetail in this private bill that I and the two Senators from Tennessee are introducing today.

In the first novel I wrote, which was about the Vietnam war, a subplot was about a young marine who fell in love with an Okinawan girl and who, after being wounded, went back into Vietnam, had left her with child, and was killed. She, not knowing this, bore the burden of carrying his son without having been formally married to this young marine. Flash forward 40 years to the future and to a different war, and we have a situation that I believe needs some prompt action on our part.

This private bill is not asking for any favors. It is not asking for any special consideration. It is simply asking that the young widow of a marine be treated like any other widow.

SGT Michael Ferschke, a 22-year-old marine, had been serving in Okinawa and had met Hotaru Nakama. They dated for a year before he deployed to Iraq. Just before he deployed, they found out that she was with child. They had, by all independent verifications, agreed that they would be married before they discovered she had been with child. He deployed to Iraq, and due to the circumstances of his combat time, they arranged to be married by telephone on July 10, 2008, when he was in Iraq. One month later to the day, he was killed.

That marriage is a marriage that is recognized, including in the State of Virginia, as a valid marriage. And yet because of an idiosyncracy in our immigration laws that dates back 55 years, the Department of Homeland Security, for immigration purposes, will not recognize this marriage.

This quirk in the law was put into place during the Korean war in order to prevent fraudulent marriages that had never been consummated. But clearly in this case, this is a marriage that could not be consummated because this young man was serving our country in Iraq. They have a child.

Every agency of the U.S. Government has done everything they can on this young widow's behalf. She is staying with the young marine's family in Tennessee on a tourist visa. The Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the U.S. Marine Corps--all have been as helpful as they can be in assisting this marine's young widow in her desire to have permanent immigration status in this country. There is no way it can happen under present law because of the peculiarities of the law. There is only one way that can happen, and that is if we pass a special bill that will do only one thing, and that is to give her the exact status that she would have had if they had been standing next to each other when they exchanged their vows in marriage. And there is only one reason they were not standing next to each other when they exchanged their vows in marriage, and that is because he was serving his country in Iraq.

I earnestly hope that all of this body and the other body can come together and remove this idiosyncracy from the lives of these people who have suffered so much because Michael Ferschke, sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps, stepped forward and did what we asked him to do and served our country.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for their work in bringing this bill to the floor at this time.

As has been described, this is a private relief bill attempting to allow the young widow of a marine who was killed in combat in Iraq to bring the couple's young son and come to live with the marine's family in the State of Tennessee in my district.

While everyone has supported this bill every step of the way, it has run into some technical or procedural difficulties that have delayed it until this point. As has previously been stated, I would like, as Ms. Chu did, to thank particularly Senator Alexander and Senator Webb who have taken such a personal interest in this bill on the Senate side, and I would like to once again thank the House for passing the general bill last month.

Mrs. Ferschke, the mother of this soldier, first came to see me about this in December of 2008. Early in this Congress, we introduced a private relief bill. It took a few months to get the necessary information and complete the required paperwork, but this private bill was taken up by the Subcommittee on Immigration in the Judiciary Committee on July 23, 2009. At that time it received the support of both Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member King, both of whom I would also like to thank. However, at that point there were some objections to doing private bills in the other body, and so at the direction of the staff of the Judiciary Committee, both majority and minority, we attempted to do an amendment to the Defense bill. However, some of the people on the Rules Committee, while supporting the bill, did not feel it was germane to the Defense bill, which we also had to agree with, but we were doing that at the direction of others. But I also would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) because hearing about this at the Rules Committee, he took a special and personal interest in this bill also.

We then introduced a general bill, once again working with the staff of the Judiciary Committee, whom I would also like to thank. That bill was passed last month in the House, but we ran into some objections here, and that is why we are back here today on this private relief bill.

Hotaru Ferschke, as has been stated, is the widow of the late Sergeant Michael Ferschke of the U.S. Marine Corps. She was born on October 20, 1983, in Okinawa, Japan. In March 2007, as Ms. Chu said, when Sergeant Ferschke was stationed in Okinawa, he met her at a mutual friend's party. They dated for more than a year before Sergeant Ferschke was deployed to Iraq in April 2008. Shortly before Sergeant Ferschke deployed, the couple learned that Hotaru was pregnant. Sergeant Ferschke's parents and members of his military unit in Iraq have attested to the fact that the couple already had planned to marry before Hotaru became pregnant and had decided to live and raise their future family in the United States.

The couple was married by proxy, by telephone, by a military chaplain in July of 2008 while Sergeant Ferschke was in Iraq. But 1 month later, in August of 2008, Sergeant Ferschke was killed in combat. Although the marriage is legally valid and recognized by the military, in order for Mrs. Ferschke to be recognized as Sergeant Ferschke's spouse for immigration purposes, the marriage itself would have had to have been consummated. Under the circumstances, this wasn't possible. The law makes no allowance to the fact that Mrs. Ferschke was already pregnant with her husband's child before the marriage ceremony took place.

I could go on and tell additional details, but I'll just leave those for the statement that I have and say that this is something that I think everyone has wanted to support all through this, and it is a great moment for this family to hopefully finally complete this at this time at the tail end of this Congress. And so I urge my colleagues to support this very worthwhile legislation.